Re: Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_VALIDATION,

["ura" <ura@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks to Steve for his reply.
Great remark, really!

Apparently I'm very stupid, because in no way some "entities" could be
"resolved" in my head. ;)
When in my previous post I talk about that "John has finished to now only x%
of his part" I first and foremost mean that John was making "his" part of
DTD at the same time with his part of working instances!
I.e. by now the hypothetical working group having on the hand with only
PARTIAL_DTD and having the bulk of piece instances with unknown "valid"=?
property.

Steve Schafer wrote:
>> Your example document represents an instance of a language,
>> and that instance happens to be invalid because it
>> contains unresolved entities, but the language itself (defined by the
>> document's DTD) does _not_ contain any non-terminals that don't resolve
to terminals.

But the problem is: in that point the hypothetical boss hasn't any idea
about ": does not_contain_ OR already _contain_the language itself (defined
by the document's DTD) any non-terminals".
He knows nothing about non-ready DTD's features (that only in future should
be the real language!).

Is my question clear? Which my point is wrong?
Now question: must such boss be waiting at sea until John and others
describe their DTD up to full condition? Does the practical implementation
of the validation theory go to hullabaloo until they not ending?  Imho it's
a troublesome moment.

And what about my problem the theory says? What I've misunderstood here?
So am I wrong that somewhere out here is the place of the PARTIAL validation
concept?


       J Bim Taler



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list