[dsdl-comment] Re: validate options in NVRL

Firstly thanks Rick, it is useful to know, although -c doesn't seem
like a URI :-)

2008/5/28 MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>:
> Dave,
>
> I am afraid that I do not have a good answer to the first
> question.

Programs do have many options, specified in different ways.
I don't like the assumption that a validator must be java.

>
> Different validators provide different options. Different schema
> languages provide different options. If we establish some convention
> for creating option URIs and maintain a registry of commonly-supported
> options, the use of options becomes easier.

But very awkward and hard to use?
A string would be easier, or use the ant idea
 <arg line="-x org.apache.xml.resolver.tools.ResolvingXMLReader"/>
so that I can specify "-c" or a full java like value?

>
> For the last question, SnRNV uses JAXP (javax.xml.validation) as an
> interface for invoking validators. In other words, it is easy to
> plug in a new validator as long as it supports javax.xml.validation.

Thanks Jirka, it does work.... but only for java applications?
So if I write a special form of validator it must have a java interface.
Or be wrapped to have a java interface.

Bad nvdl :-)

I'm surprised this wan't noticed in the ISO process, constrained to
one language.

Thanks for the answers. At least we know where we are now.

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
--
DSDL comments
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)