[uf-discuss] xdmp profiles not enough for parsing?

Karl Dubost karl at w3.org
Wed Nov 16 10:36:45 PST 2005


Le 05-11-16 à 12:13, Tantek Çelik a écrit :
> Worse than that, you WILL make mistakes in terms of thinking, oh  
> you would
> ONLY want to embed A in B, until someone figures out that oops, in
> *practice* you actual *do* want to embed <ol> or <ul> inside a <p> for
> example (from HTML4 DTD).

What Tantek is saying is that XML Schema, RelaxNG, etc. are good at  
expressing the structure in very constraining ways and sometimes too  
constraining removing then the evolutivity of your language.

> Like I said, there is a *ton* of such experiences in this space  
> (trying to
> write generic DTD/schema languages for generic parsability).

Yes. Quite of. And XML-type Schemas are only able to express a very  
minimal semantic.

> When it comes down to it, the most useful information for a parser/ 
> validator
> is just to know what are the properties and what are the values.   
> That's
> what XMDP provides.

What XMDP provides is the semantic of the link which associates the  
property with values.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list