RelaxNG support on nALFS?

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Tue Nov 30 12:51:18 PST 2004

James Robertson wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> Well, depends on your definition of "easy" I suppose :)  Bear in mind 
>> that (I think) we'd like a syntax that those not proficient with the 
>> various XML-related specs/technologies can easily adapt for their own 
>> uses.  Sure, given enough example profiles, customising xpointer 
>> syntax may be entirely suitable.  I was thinking of something like a 
>> top-level <alfsCollection> tag or something, that would then allow one 
>> or more <alfs> children underneath it.  Like your change, it would 
>> only require a change to the top-level LFS.xml profile.
> That would be a DTD change?  Is there a way to get nALFS to rad the 
> profile in and "figure out" what method was used to then allow validation?

I was assuming DTD/schema changes would be permissible for nALFS2, hence 
the suggestion.  If that's not possible then neither is validation IMO. 
  An XML document is either entirely valid (proved via validation), or 
you hope for the best by not doing any validation and accepting anything 
that is thrown at you.  Although there is some value in implementing 
something like "Validate everything except LFS.xml" I doubt it's 
expected behaviour from a validating parser.



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list