[dsdl-discuss] Re: DSDL-9 - issues for discussion prior to / duringWG1 conference call on August 6th

Murata-san

> 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.

We discussed this during the WG1 phone-in last Sunday. We agreed that DSDL-9
parsers must effectively be prefix-insensitive, so you are absolutely right
that we will need to make it clear that DSDL-9 validation will yield very
different results for instances that contain prefixes. AS you say, there is
no "nice harmonization"! In the next draft I will provide illustrations of
different validation outcomes using legacy validators and DSDL-9 validators.

By the way, we also agreed that the next draft will contain sufficient new
material that it will probably be wise to go to a second CD and not directly
to FCD - but perhaps I should informally check that out by circulating a
draft to this list before it becomes a formal SC34 document.

Regards

Francis Cave

--
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)