From: "Dennis Sosnoski" <dms@[...].com> 

>  I absolutely prefer using DTDs.

What things are nice about DTDs? terseness, 80/20 level of complexity, 
 familiarity, tools support, feature mix, link-oriented datatypes?

>  ...my preference is to have 
>  the schema only describe the structure of the document and leave the 
>  data validation to the application. This is because (1) I'm unwilling to 
>  trust schema validation by the parser in my code - if somebody changes 
>  the schema I don't want it creating a buffer overrun (well, an 
>  ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException anyway - you can't actually *do* buffer 
>  overruns in Java...) in the application; and (2) there are generally 
>  constraints on the data which cannot be expressed in the schema language 
>  (interdependencies between values, or dependencies on external values).

Are you saying that as well as supporting the validation model where 
we allow very specific validation using generic tools as a matter of
QA and QC, we also need to support document flows where 
we have only rudimentary point-to-point validation (e.g. just enough to make sure
that intermediate XSLT programs will work) and the main application
looks after any complex validation itself?

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>