If a RELAX NG implementation supported only the built-in datatype library,
then it would be useful only for structural validation. This is still
useful functionality: XML 1.0 DTDs provide almost nothing in the way of
datatype validation. Applications might have some other way of doing
datatype validation. Requiring RELAX NG implementations to support at
least one datatype library is pointless: an implementor can just make one
up that contains just a "string" datatype.
--On 01 August 2001 17:24 -0700 Michael Fitzgerald <> wrote:
> Sokay. What good would an implementation be if it only supported the
> built-in library? What's an example of an application that will not need
> datatype validation?
>
> Just full of questions,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Clark [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 4:17 PM
> To: Michael Fitzgerald; RELAX NG List
> Subject: RE: Fallback mechanism for the datatype
>
>> Must a conformant RELAX NG processor support XML Schema Part 2?
>
> No.
>
>> Must a conformant RELAX NG processor support at least one datatype
>> library of the implementer's choosing?
>
> An implementor need only support the builtin datatype library.
>
> James
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
>
>
