[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_VALIDATION
Subject: Re: Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_VALIDATION From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:43:55 -0500 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:10:59 +0400, you wrote: >> "Although it is legal to define a language containing non-terminals that >> never resolve to terminals, such as one with purely circular definitions, >> it is generally impossible and/or _USELESS_ to create any valid >> documents for such languages." ... >However, what if John has finished to now only x% of his part? That's not the same thing. The statement you quote is talking about defining a language _grammar_ that contains non-terminals that never resolve to terminals. 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. In other words, the problem in your example is not that the language contains inherently _unresolvable_ non-terminals, but that the particular document expressed in that language contains _unresolved_ non-terminals. -Steve Schafer XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_, ura | Thread | Re: [Re: Java API for XSLT], Kyle Downey |
Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_, ura | Date | Re: [Re: Java API for XSLT], Kyle Downey |
Month |