lmi
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Why should we sort XML documents?


From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] Why should we sort XML documents?
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 01:50:14 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2

On 2018-03-06 00:30, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:41:44 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> GC> On 2018-03-05 18:50, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> GC> [...]
> GC> > GC> [...if we omit sorting, then...] We really have nothing to gain.
> GC> > 
> GC> >  I somewhat disagree with this too. Simplification is always nice, and
> GC> > removing the need to sort the cells here would allow us to not use
> GC> > libxsltwrapp (and hence libxslt) at all any longer once the XSL-FO code 
> is
> GC> > finally removed which is, IMHO, a not-negligible payoff for very little
> GC> > work.
> GC> 
> GC> Wow, I didn't see that--I somehow thought that XSD (and RNG) were
> GC> supported by libxslt, but no, libxml2 does that.
> 
>  Sorry, I feel like I'm missing something here. Just to make it perfectly
> clear: I didn't mean at all to say that libxml2 supported using RNG
> directly (although it indeed does), just that we wouldn't need to use
> libxsltwrapp to apply the XSLT used for sorting XML documents any longer.
> 
>  So I just don't see any link between what I wrote and your reply, which
> bothers me -- even though it doesn't change the fact that both what you
> wrote and, I think, what I wrote, is true.

After a week consumed by forensic investigation of that libxslt+wine
problem, my email backlog is such that I'm sending some replies with
less careful editing than usual. Here, I pressed "Send" when it seemed
that I had all the facts right, but didn't make everything flow as
nicely as you've come to expect.

> GC> And, because we've been relying exclusively on XSD, we've sorted the
> GC> input--because XSD is less capable than RN[CG], and sorting partially
> GC> mitigates that loss of capability.
> 
>  No, sorry, I just don't think this is true.

I imagine you're perfectly correct: that XSD is as powerful as RN[CG]
for our present use case.

But I'm highly confident that RNG is as powerful as RNC.

"highly confident" > "I imagine", and it's okay to err on the side
of caution.

> GC> Of course, I'm assuming that xmlwrapp already handles RNG,
> 
>  No, it doesn't.
> 
> GC> or can easily be extended to do so;
> 
>  I think so, but, as usual, it would probably be faster to just do it than
> trying to estimate the time needed to do it.

Okay, then let's do it that way.

>  What I still don't understand is why should we do all this instead of just
> getting rid of libxslt _without_ doing all this. In the worst case, i.e. if
> we ever need RelaxNG features not supported by XML Schema in the future, we
> could always do this later. What is the motivation for doing it right now?

I just have some lingering doubt, and I don't want to spend the time
it would take to dispel it, when there's a doubt-free path that's
just as good.

"highly confident" * no_thinking_required > "I imagine" * need_to_think

Besides, I really dislike XSD, so why not stop supporting it?
And RNC --> XSD translation with 'trang' is presumably perfect,
but its translation of RNC --> RNG is presumably more perfect. It's
easier just to expunge everything that seems the least bit dubious,
and the way the last week proceeded has exacerbated my already
suspicious nature. I'll sleep better with no XSD in my universe.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]