Re: [xsl] Schema-aware validation of XHTML result-document

["Jesper Tverskov" <jesper@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we should put full focus on the one remaining issue, as Andrew
Welch wrote:

I guess what you asking for here is that the original pre-validation
result is serialised rather than the post-validation result - this
would mean the defaulted values not present in your result would be
added for the validation and then discarded, leaving your
pre-validation result intact.  (much like when you just check a file
on disk for validity - it isn't left with defaulted values after
validation).

Its certainly raised an interesting question - should the serialised
version of the validated result be the per or post validation
instance?

Cheers,
Jesper


On 3/9/07, Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jesper Tverskov wrote:
> > When I use runtime validation the error message is only good when the
> > errors are not treated as warnings, but bad in the "warning" mode:
> > just "One or more validation errors were reported". In both modes
> > nothing is highlighted in the stylesheet.
>
> Yes, this is a problem with Oxygen. I use it too, and many messages are
> not included in full, sometimes they say just "error occurred" or
> something like that. It is strange, because Saxon has a very clear and
> easy to use error reporting system, and in my own Java backend system
> all errors are captured with extensive detail.
>
> My workaround: if you have an unclear error because Oxygen did not
> correctly capture it, run it from the commandline and you get the
> original clear message from Saxon.
>
> > I understand that XHTML is a special XML-case, but I don't think we
> > disagree on anything here. XSLT processors should be improved to make
> > also XHTML result-documents valid, when they say so.
>
> This is of course impossible. XSLT can create XML that is schema-valid,
> and multiple schema's can be used. It is against the nature of XML and
> Schema's to reject documents that are valid, that would be utterly backward.
>
> The best thing a parser can do (and should do, I believe) is use the
> room that the spec leaves it for optimizing XHTML when the output method
> is set to "xhtml". That is, not closing certain empty tags like <script
> src="bla.js"></script>, which would've been closed if XML were the
> output method. But to make the output XHTML valid is something very
> different from making it (xhtml) Schema valid.
>
> > Are you
> > serious? Most of us can easily add templates to our styleheets, but it
> > is not a proper way forward in most use cases to open op schemas and
> > modify them just to do result-document validation.
>
> I do it all the time when my output format requirements change and
> that's certainly a common use case. But I wouldn't open up a
> standardized document as XHTML, instead, I would add extra schema's to
> it to accommodate for my own specific extra needs.
>
> > It might be against the last detail of the spec, but AltovaXML has
> > taken this approach: why not be better than the spec, when it is so
> > wrong, that validation of result-documents become almost a joke, if we
> > follow the spec to the word.
>
> No, I think you misinterpret the note from Colin here. The spec just
> says nothing about what means a processor supports for getting external
> resources, it may even support none (but that would not be very useful).
> Of course, if you claim to support the http: scheme for looking up
> resources, it is a bug if it doesn't work, but it has nothing to do with
> being non-conformant to the spec.
>
> About not following the spec to the word: I surely hope they do and that
> each vendor uses the extension mechanisms (and there are a lot of them)
> to treat users to all kinds of great features that they added to their
> product (Saxon has many of them, unfortunately AltovaXML is still far
> from conformant and has very few extensions).
>
> >
> > Why not a new "being better than the spec" mode also for Saxon, some
> > parameter to use at the command line?
>
> Opinions vary of course, but in outbeating the spec, Saxon sure is the
> number one processor for ahead of competitors, stuffed with features not
> directly necessary if you would make your product be "just compliant".
>
> Cheers,
> -- Abel Braaksma


--
Jesper Tverskov

www.xmlkurser.dk
www.xmlplease.com