|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re:Enlightenmentvia
> > Of course one define identical syntaxes with DTDs which don't need to invoke > such "local" and "global" differentiations. I wonder what the real need for > this complexity is? > Let me restate this, because the point I am trying to make has nothing to do with the distinction between DTDs and XSDL or RELAXNG, and everything to do with how namespaces are used in XML documents. That should read: "Of course one can define identical syntaxes with other schema languages ( e.g. RELAXNG) which don't need to invoke ..." The point being here, that there is a distinction between the label given to a pattern of elements (e.g. the complexType name) and the name of the element itself. In well-formed documents, there is only one root/document element, so are you suggesting that we call all elements which are not allowed to be at the top level "local"? That would be fine with me, but I would hardly suggest that all such elements be unqualified. I understand that this is not exactly how -XSDL defines- "local element" but what I am trying to get at is not how such a term is defined in XSDL, but rather what the practical meaning of this term is. Jonathan
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








