Hi Freek/All; On 8/16/11 2:41 PM, thus spake Freek Dijkstra:
Hi Jason,
Let me be the first to say that I very much appreciate your feedback, despite the disagreements we sometimes have. I for one still gladly invite you for a cup of coffee (or any other beverage) next OGF :)
The discussion this afternoon was indeed a bit heated, but I think we both can separate feelings from the technical discussion.
heated discussions are needed to get things done, but sometimes too much information on a mailing list is a bad thing. if things are getting too technical to describe in email we should move to phone.
Perhaps a phone call may help. I know there is an NMC call scheduled this Thursday, otherwise I would have proposed an NML call at that time.
NMC will need to meet this week, perhaps NML can meet next.
There is still a lot to say regarding your previous mail, I may try to summarise it in a separate mail, but I'll gladly postpone that for now if you feel a short break serves the discussion.
There's one off-hand remark that caught my eye:
to my knowledge a parser can only verify against a single schema at any given time.
To my knowledge it is possible for a parser to validate against multiple schema at the same time.
In my experience (libxml, some older Java libraries) a single schema is loaded into the parser. It is possible to reference schema from each other, e.g. in relax:
include "something.rnc" { # include things ... }
Trying to validate the same instance against different schemata simultaneously does not seem like a very fruitful exercise for a parser, unless there are multiple parsing passes being applied. If the latter is true, I would argue that more time is being spent in syntax checking than in the real guts of semantic evaluation. If you have real world examples I am happy to be proven wrong. Thanks; -jason
I fear this alone may be responsible for quite a lot of our misunderstandings in this discussion.
For example, to me that meant I saw no functional difference between an element in the same namespace and an element in a different namespace, while to you they are clearly very different (and I now understand my they are different to you; I previously didn't understand that). I also fear that the whole discussion at the first half of your previous email was just an exponent of this misunderstanding. At least, reading back I can now understand where your argument was coming from.
Let's hope we can find the other underlying differences in assumptions we sure have (preferably with less lengthy mails ;) ).
If you know a magical way to find these differences, let me know ...
All the best, Freek