Why validate? (was Re: Parser compliance)

[James Tauber]

> It may
> not be a sure thing, but it's certainly plausible that future XML
> applications will be a combination of relatively low-level procedural
> code and relatively high-level descriptive code (in the form of
> schemas).

As I wrote in response to Anthony Coates on "If SAX == lex...", FOP
generates application classes on the basis of a schema-like description of
attributes. I'm moving towards actually using the W3C schema language, but
with extensions that enable me to say things like "in the absence of an
explicit value for this attribute, compute a value on the basis of that
attribute". Although it is an implementation issue, I'm actually just using
XSLT to go from high-level descriptive schema-like XML to Java source.

Amongst other things, I'm excited about the opportunities this provides for
literate programming. While I'm working on this specifically for FOP, most
of what I'm working on in generic. My plan is for it to be possible to take
the XML description of properties and generate (via XSLT): Java source,
human readable documentation and a normal schema.

James Tauber



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)