This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_VALIDATION
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_VALIDATION
- From: Steve Schafer <pandeng at telepath dot com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:43:55 -0500
- Organization: Pandion Engineering
- References: <200004142143.RAA12670@mulberrytech.com> <003301bfa6dc$38e65ba0$e56470c3@obninsk.ru>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
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