[dsdl-discuss] Re: DSDL-9 - issues for discussion prior to / during WG1 conference call on August 6th

Francis> So, should we insist that simultaneous validation in both legacy and
Francis> DSDL-9 terms is a requirement, or should we allow DSDL-9 parsers to be
Francis> silent as to the validity of an instance in legacy terms? Sequential
Francis> validation would always be possible using a pipeline validation process
Francis> using both legacy and DSDL-9 aware parsers. Insistence upon simultaneous
Francis> validation will make it necessary to embed DSDL-9 awareness more deeply
Francis> within the design of the parser.

Francis,

I do not insist on the combination of both prefix-sensitive (legacy)
validation and prefix-insensitive validation. However, the too nice
story in the beginning of the current draft has to be substantially
changed. If we adopt prefix-insensitive validaiton only, then we
are encouraging users to throw away existing validators, but the
current draft promises nice harmonization between the new world
and legacy world.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)