Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 3:40 PM -0800 1/22/02, Michael Brennan wrote: > > >> Perhaps an attribute: > >> > >> <root rddl:doctype="....a RDDL directory of 'document types' ..."> > > > >I don't particularly like this. For one, the rddl:doctype attribute is > >essentially a processing directive. I think a PI would be more > >appropriate. (XML Schema set a bad precedent in this regard, IMHO.) I'm > >also not convinced that a specialized attribute or PI and specialized > >purpose are needed. > > > > An attribute would only make sense if this could be applied to > multiple elements in the document and to non-root elements. But if > we're talking about *document* types as opposed to *element* types, > then the scope should be document wide, and a processing instruction > is appropriate. > -- Good point. An element type is certainly related to its qualifying namespace name, and for the type averse, this is simply the XML 1.0 definition of element type: its name. So one could say that RDDL is currently useful for describing element types and the addition of a PI could make it useful for describing document types. A message entitled "Strategies for a lowly XML document" is forthcoming. Following this it would be good for the list to decide whether a RDDL PI is something worth including in the next release of the specification. Jonathan
|
