On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 13:22, Neil Williams wrote: > I disagree, I prefer validation because there's no reason to implement a > sub-set of validation (just checking Doc-Root) when code exists to check the > whole. After all, you just said to use other existing methods rather than > implementing our own. Schema validation isn't our own, checking just the root > tag would be.
Apple: "is this document what I expect to process" via a string equality check of the fully-qualified name of the root element. Orange: re-implementing a validator. You should still check the fully-qualified root element to see if you should even _try_ to validate against the schema. > I just don't feel that is sufficient. As the code is now operational, the > library version is satisfactory for the target and the schema is itself > useful for future development, I don't see any point in abandoning it further > down the road. If it wasn't working, I might agree with you. I strongly believe the schema should be informative rather than used at runtime, but I guess we'll just disagree on that; if validation is working with a version of libxml2 that fits our platform-targeting, then great. > We all know XML will be edited when the needs arises, all we do is discourage > people from tampering with the complicated bits, like the map calculation. I wasn't talking about one-off debugging cases which expect looking under the covers; it sounded earlier like your expected use-case was hand-editing object data. But I better understand your intent, now. ...jsled -- http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
