[dsdl-comment] Re: validate options in NVRL

2008/5/28 Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>:
> I was one of the ones to ask for options, because Schematron needs them

As do many other 'validator like' tools. No problem with options.

> I don't have any great attraction to the idea that everything should be a
> URL: for example sch:schema/@queryBinding is just a token not a URL.
> But some people think it is valuable, and it certainly is a webby way to do
> things. For example, SAX properties and features are URLs. I guess the idea
> is that if an implementation makes a validator available, it needs to also
> make URLs for any command-line options. The advantage of this approach is
> also that it can make NVDL scripts more informative and more portable (since
> the same functionality may have different details on different
> implementations of the underlying validation engine.)

Good point. So long as users know they can abuse the idea of 'url'
as you pointed out.

Jirka, I now see it as an implementation issue rather
than as a spec issue.
 Thanks for the clarification.

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)