Yup

Post #236,658 by drewk 11/30/05 5:13:10 PM Reply	Yup More fun is trying to validate that a given XML doc conforms to the DTD, given that the DTD can have same-named nodes at different levels of different nodes. Converting this to an unambiguous data structure that can still be comprehended by a normal human is tricky. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #236,671 by tablizer 11/30/05 5:45:03 PM Reply	XML murders relational normalization thinking The Buchanian navigationalists are trying to ressurrect themselves using XML and OOP to pull their rotting corpses from the cold, damp 1960's ground. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #236,690 by tuberculosis 11/30/05 9:13:51 PM Reply	Web pages aren't meant to be relational I'm building a program to check the general level of "wrongness" of the html in a web page. The formal definition of this is a DTD from the W3C. I've got a nifty parser built that seems to successfully build a DOM out of even the most hideous html and diagnoses things like unclosed tags and such as it goes. This gets me the general structural-ness stuff. But for things like "you can't follow a table tag with a form tag" I'll have to go to the DTD. Turning a DTD into a useful data structure in memory has proven to be bloody challenging (although I think I just cracked it a couple minutes ago). "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #236,959 by tablizer 12/3/05 8:12:02 PM Reply	and it shows ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!