Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Bill Lindsey" <bill@b...> > Actually, I think it may be perfectly okay to use W3C > XML Schema's xsi:type attribute and to have a > RDDL-(like) document at the named URI. I don't think XML Schema's xsi:type is appropriate. A document type is more than just content models. It could also include specific conventions, restrictions, usages, ways of using PIs, assumptions, conventual comments, house rules, style sheets, other kinds of schemas, defaulting rules, entity sets, etc. xsi:type is defined by W3C XML Schemas for a particular use, and it won't help us to appropriate attributes defined by quasi-standards. In WebSGML, the SGML Declaration had a "SEEALSO" parameter attached. It allows you to point to a document which contains other requirements for the document's type that have not been expressed in any declarations. For example, James Clark's "differences between XML and SGML" document started life as one of these. A RDDL document would make an excellent SEEALSO document too. So a PI would be the most appropriate way of expressing a document type. (Actually, IMHO the DOCTYPE declaration is actually a kind of processing instruction, really a pre-processing instruction.) Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
