>
> 1) bind typed datas. Although this is not about validation but rather
> for applications, one could imagine to involve a typed data in an
> assertion ;

I think that is dependent on an application being written that uses
Schematron to do datatype binding.

One of the differences between Schematron and XML Schema is that with
XML Schema you are assured (sort of) that your 'objects' have the
complete structure provided. Whereas in Schematron you do not have
this assurance. I think however that in a language like JavaScript
getting around this difficult would be easy, and in a language like C#
it would be horrendous.

>I don't know how Schematron could take care of that ; in any
> case, before binding typed datas, Schematron cannot defined custom typed
> datas

http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/10/converting_xml_schemas_to_sche_4.html

>
> 3) Schematron doesn't act on content models (that is to say to what is
> allowed to find at some place) : within an editor, one can propose an
> element that Schematron would refuse ; for this reason, acting on
> content models is certainly more reliable or more smart...


I think that depends on the editor implementing it surely?

Actually also on the large 1 GB documents I guess there is an
implementation out there, if you run the implementation through the
DataPower XML Accelerator or something like that
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/xa35 maybe IBM
should focus on that in their marketing. :)

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen