>>>>> "David" == David Crossley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> I am not sure which tool you refer to. I had no problems at
rng which uses msv, by the author of msv.
David> I presume that the draft sitemap DTD is using a workaround
David> for the namespace lack, by having explicit element names
David> which contain the "map:" prefix, e.g. <!ELEMENT
David> map:components ... This workaround is then reflected in
David> the generated RNG. Is that what you are referring to with
David> your next statement?
That's correct.
David> I gather that you are suggesting to maintain a canonical
David> RNG grammar, which we use for system validation. Then from
I am suggesting just that. In my opinion the DTD grammar has no other
value than a starting point for some other grammar.
David> that canonical RNG we can generate a WXS schema that can be
David> used by any XML editors that cannot use RNG. That sounds
David> like the way to go.
I agree.
David> We should compare the two RNG grammars that are generated
David> from sitemap-v04.dtd to decide which one to base any
David> further work upon.
I have already done that. The one you generated is preferable in
several small ways (apart from the fact that it is legal! -
The rng tool creates defines of the form map:name, which is
illegal. The tool you used generates names of the form map.name, which
is ok)
David> Or perhaps we should really write it
David> from scratch, just using the generated ones for guidance.
What I shall be doing today (I'm offline during the day, BTW), if I
have time after looking into the sitemap namespaces issue, is to
take the rng grammar you generated (or generate a fresh one from a new
DTD depending on what I find out about sitemap namespaces), and start
changing it to overcome the DTD limitations (first change is to
specify that map:components can be in any order, but at most one -
using optionals nested in interleave - and go on in the same vain,
iterating towards a better grammar).
I think we might one to eventually have a schematron schema AS WELL as
an RNG and WXS grammar. The full validation would then consist of
checking against both schemas, but I'm running too far ahead for now.
David> Did you see the demonstration that i provided in the
David> abovementioned thread? It provides an Ant task for
David> build-time validation. Also Pete Royal followed up with
David> mention about validation of Configuration objects via
David> Avalon soon.
I haven't had time to try it yet, but I downloaded the patches.
--
Colin Paul Adams
Preston Lancashire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
