Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> writes: > On Thursday 24 January 2002 11:47 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > > Steve's message is pertinent. Maybe XML needs to, > > as a human does, be able to go in both directions. > > That is, a parent constrains the element, but an > > element should be able to cite its eligible > > parents. > From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] > > How is that contract to be obeyed? Since Len asked me to answer this question, I'm trying, but I guess I don't understand the question. Why is this any different from obeying the contextual constraints imposed on an element instance by any corresponding DTD or XML schema for the element type of which the element is an instance? An element specifies its eligible parents by specifying its generic identifier. If the element has multiple alternative generic identifiers (as is the case when the AF paradigm is used), then each of them has the effect of imposing constraints on its parents, but only in terms of the DTD of the corresponding base architecture. In all cases, the "contract" is obeyed by constructing the document instance in conformance with the corresponding DTD(s). -- Steve Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant srn@c... voice: +1 972 359 8160 fax: +1 972 359 0270 1527 Northaven Drive Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
|
