xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:52:46 +1000
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:56:44PM +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >| CTM should be easy to validate
> > That's an interesting requirement, but I'm not sure exactly what you
> > mean by it. Validate on what level? Syntactically? Or against a schema?
> I'm amazed by those questions. If you specify a language, I guess you provide ways to
> check if the files you produce are conformant to the specification. Call it well-formed,
> valid, whatever....
Hold on, hold on.
The background is:
- every (formalized) language has a structure (syntax). Every string
(one-dimensional languages) follows this syntax.
There are languages to express this syntax. EBNF (argh) is one of them.
- every (formalized) language has a meaning (semantics).
Also here there are languages, depending on the complexity or computational
model underlying the language.
So 'well-formed' is merely a syntactical conformance where a string
conforms to a syntax, but not every syntax-conforming string might be
a correct string (e.g. 'type correctness' if the language understands
types could be violated).
So we should be now on the same page.
> ...................., in any case : when I get a file "foo.ctm", how do I make sure it's
> conformant to the CTM specification? What kind of tool do I use? When I have an XML file,
> I know that I have two possible levels of validation (at least), and the ways to check it
> in my XML editor.
Could be a pretty bogus argument, because I always wondered:
Conjecture [A]: Is it possible to construct an XTM file which
validates against the XTM DTD and which 'violates'
In this case, for instance,
Contains the IRI reference that is the topic reference. This IRI
reference shall conform to the requirements of XLink and have a
fragment identifier which shall be what [W3C XPointer] calls a
shorthand pointer (formerly barename).
[ Ah, I found accidentally a typo!! ]
So far, so good. And TMDM
[player]: A topic item. The topic that plays this role in the association.
And if the XTM serialization rules
..... If no such topic item exists, a topic item is created, and l
added to its [item identifiers] property.
then I wonder whether this all works.
If conjecture [A] is true, my argument, then, would be "if XTM (+
DTD/Relax/Schema) cannot guarantee that my content which I put in with
this nifty-hefty-trendy XML development thingy is TMDM-sane, how does
XTM editing make sense at all?"
Hope I am wrong with my conjecture [A]. ;-)