<html>
Rick - I didnt see where to pickup your draft. Since this group is
NOT<br>
XML-standards-body-only-need-apply, I thought I'd make a 2 cent
point.<br>
<br>
SOMEWHERE in xmlland there is an effort to use XML tags syntax instead of
DTD, <br>
and I just have to workaround with my own for now. Maybe that
is getting completed.<br>
<br>
In any case, what I feel is that its EASIER for me to setup an XML
validation thang than what I see<br>
as a separate syntax in the DTD world. PLUS it gets awfully
difficult from <br>
an application approach to get really detailed rules e.g. arbitrary
extensions to DTD<br>
for those cases where "if its tuesday and you are in belgium, you
can speak three languages unless<br>
you are in a lambic beer brewery". To me, XML (or maybe
xml) is helpful 'cause its<br>
readable e.g. intuitive - DTD's aint' folks and never will be..<br>
<br>
So rather than worry about it, I create an application level XML
tag and then place entries for each attribute for<br>
my own application. I am not trying to pursue STANDARDS. I am
interested in STANDARDS when<br>
the parser folks can improve their interaction with my
applications. A while ago I brought up<br>
EVENT handling which I feel is essential to getting more power from the
parser but that<br>
met a big THUNK with the people on this group at that time.<br>
<br>
So, for my apps, after the XML parser has validated the entries via DTD,
I can use a more granular <br>
application level XML approach.<br>
<br>
For example, to validate the XML <Command> entry <CO> and its
several attributes, I have this<br>
'validate' method hanging around for my application. At some point
I could go back and build the DTD from this<br>
information and let the parser do the error checking, but this was faster
for me to build into my application<br>
for right now than trying to grok the DTD stuff. And I don't
see how the parser is going to<br>
handle the issues right now that more errors/rules brings to the
table.<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Terminal, Monaco"><COMMAND TYPE="CO"
NAME="entities" METHOD="validate"><br>
<CO TYPE="TYPE"
VALIDATE="prelim|cli|request|command|files|backup|restore|image|internal|include|internal_file|metadata|var|var_internal|var_calc|var_list|subcommand|cond_subcommand|program|cond_program|suffix|executable|log|logfile|catalog|exit|errorcode"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="DEFAULT" VALIDATE="*"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="NAME" VALIDATE="*"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="LOG" VALIDATE="*"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="PURPOSE" VALIDATE="*"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="CALC" VALIDATE="*"
CO="var_calc"/><br>
<CO TYPE="COMMAND"
VALIDATE="request|command|files|backup|restore|image|internal|include|internal_file|var|var_internal|metadata|var_calc|var_list|subcommand|cond_subcommand|log|logfile|catalog|exit"
CO="subcommand|cond_subcommand"/><br>
<CO TYPE="PROGRAM" VALIDATE="*"
CO="program|cond_program|subcommand|var_list"/><br>
<CO TYPE="METHOD" VALIDATE="subcommand|cli|map"
CO="subcommand|cond_subcommand|error"/><br>
<CO TYPE="WHEN"
VALIDATE="pre|post|during|notify|hold"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="CLEANUP" VALIDATE="ok|no"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="NOTIFY" VALIDATE="ok|no"
CO="*"/><br>
<CO TYPE="PREFACE" VALIDATE="*"
CO="cli"/><br>
<CO TYPE="VAR" VALIDATE="*"
CO="cond_program|cond_subcommand|subcommand"/><br>
<CO TYPE="VAR_NAME" VALIDATE="*"
CO="cond_program|cond_subcommand"/><br>
<CO TYPE="VAR_COMPARE"
VALIDATE="==|!=|&#62;|&#62;&#62;|&#60;|&#60;&#60;|&#60;=|&#62;="
CO="cond_program|cond_subcommand"/><br>
<CO TYPE="MODE"
VALIDATE="for_each_sub|optional|required|default"
CO="cli|program|cond_program|subcommand|cond_subcommand|var|var_calc"/><br>
</COMMAND><br>
<br>
</font>I am using Python and the code to validate this was very short and
easy to implement. Maybe 50 lines.<br>
I would see more benefit in using the parser if there was clearer
interactions between the parser and the real world<br>
application. Most parsers take a document centric approach while I
am working more data driven where I use<br>
bits of XML all through the processing of the application. So I
want to be able to control just<br>
when this level of validation is done for example. BTW, can you find the
INVALID<br>
XML on this page based on this syntax? <br>
<br>
I suspect other folks are doing something similar here to get things
going: IMHO, <br>
this approach is more readable as well as more flexible than the
DTD. Can someone<br>
point me to the status of using XML for this kind of validation is
done?<br>
Again, if the PARSER's said they could do something more with the DTD
than just<br>
complain when an error occurred, it would be more helpful to me. I
know<br>
that the nascent XML editors need the DTDs so in the long term I'll
have<br>
to go back and support that. <br>
<br>
<div>...bryan</div>
<br>
<div>F. Bryan Cooper<x-tab> </x-tab>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>707 823 7324 <x-tab> </x-tab></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>707 313 0355 fax</div>
<div>VERITAS Software <x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>707 321 3301 mobile</div>
Bryan.Cooper@veritas.com
</html>