Subject: Re: XSL Theory From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:07:04 -0600 |
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:05:01 -0000, you wrote: >I suspect if you take the problem the other way round, and try to prove >incorrectness, you will make a lot more progress. I would think there are a >large number of cases where, given a schema to which the source document >must conform, and a stylesheet, I can prove quite easily that the result >will NOT always conform to a given result schema. That sounds like a >worthwhile thing to do. Proving that something is wrong is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and once you've proved that it is wrong, you just throw it away (or fix it). But just because you haven't figured out a way to prove something wrong doesn't meant that it is right, of course. And without proof that it is right, you're back in the original situation--you can't deploy the code with complete confidence. I'm not saying that it is _necessary_ to have proof that a program is correct, by the way. But that is what the original question was asking. In practice, we normally use testing as a substitute for rigorous proof. -Steve Schafer XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XSL Theory, Kay Michael | Thread | Re: XSL Theory, Jon Smirl |
Re: Performance, Mike Engelhart | Date | Re: XSL Theory, Steve Schafer |
Month |