> Its a common practice for everybody, who needs to come up with formal proofs. > You start with the most simplified definitions possible, that capture the > essence of the problem. > Then you get the skeleton of the proof that is hopefully very simple. Then > you can add details back, hoping that the proof remains simple and tractable. > > So imagine starting the proof while considering all the possible variations > of path expressions, all the Infoset stuff, all XML Schema details. I think > its hopeless.
I’m completely in line with Michael’s observations. It would obviously be nice to have proofs for the full rule sets of the discussed languages; but as experience shows, no one will do it (the rare exception might prove the rule), so we are stuck with the work that is of limited practical use. _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
