Print

Print


[log in to unmask]: wrote


> You want your XML files spell-checked? You could
> write an application which did a callout to a
> spell-checker for each text node.
> 


Sure, but this wasn't the question.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> > PS: Instead of explaining NDR. - my English is too poor for this - I 
> would a=
> > sk how I can say to a standard XML parser: "Check the nodes with 
> attribution=
> >  of OSE for well-formedness!" (Old Spelling English ;-)
> 
> 
> This is an impossible request. Before the parser can determine that a 
> node exists, let alone what its attribute values might be,  the document 
> must be entirely well formed.
> Well-formedness is a precondition for a parser to operate on a document 
> in any way.
> 
> 
Obviously I have to sharpen my terminology. You too?
If 'well-formedness' in the given TEI context is to discuss only on the level 
of metalanguage, nodes are not to 'validate' (= parsed against the grammar 
defined by DTD or otherwise). But what means then the passage rightly picked up 
by Sylvain?

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> A strange statement in the Guidelines:
> 
>     By default, a <formula> is assumed to contain character data which 
> is not validated in any way:    

Underlining the strangeness of such remark I cite an example for a date 
structure element:

_dateStruct value='26-10-1775'_ _day value='26'_26_/day_ _month 
value='10'_October_/month_ _year value='1775'_1775_/year_ _/dateStruct_ 

For me such examples are showing how TEI conformant markup allows semantic 
document processing without looking inside the nodes. Isn't it?