On 4/22/06, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/21/06 7:18 PM, "Luke Arno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mark P. is on the right track here as usual, I think. > > Yes. > > > What has been glossed over in this convo is that > > underlying the discomfort that has been expressed > > on the validation front here is this: > > > > Sure you can validate a microformat reasonably > > well (though it may be difficult to validate format > > transformations that result in microformats) but > > there is not meta-microformat (god, did I just say > > that?!?) to conduct validation automatically > > (ie without manually translating the spec into > > rules that your validator can understand) We > > have profiles, of course but they are not machine > > readable like a schema for tower of babel XML > > (XSD or RNG or what not). > > Not glossed over. I think you may have missed previous discussions which > explained this quite simply.
Perhaps, I have been quite busy and can not follow every thread. Forgive any gaps in my context. Also "glossed over" was probably a poor choice of words on my part as it implies some intentionality. I should have just said that I hadn't noticed it stated. > > For *any* popular data format (e.g. HTML, RSS etc.), there is no meta-format > that fully describes them, so the implied assumption that we should seek > that goal for microformats is a poor assumption (or certainly one that is > outside the scope of microformats). I did not imply what you inferred: that we should have such a thing. I thought that perhaps this was what Bruce was getting at in the mail at the start of this thread and wanted to clarify. > > In fact, DTD, Schema, etc. are insufficient to validate any real world > adopted format, whether SGML, XML or something else. Just go look at the > source for validator.w3.org for HTML validation, or the source for the feed > validator for RSS. Any really useful XML will similarly need far more than > DTD or schema to validate. > It is true that existing schema formats can only go so far, but they express more to a machine than a profile. Besides these clarifications of fact, I only intended to express 2 opinions: 1. I agree with Mark. 2. Schematron seems promising for uf validation. Sorry for any confusion. Cheers, - Luke _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
