[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:19:31 -0800
• In-reply-to: <m33d0fflmp.fsf@d...>
• References: <m33d0fflmp.fsf@d...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <m38zaetokm.fsf@l...> <m37kpym99c.fsf@d...> <m3lmea44sq.fsf@l...>

Steven R. Newcomb wrote:

> AFs can work if you don't have a DTD, which can be
> quite important in XML-land.  Of course, in that case,
> you have to provide the AF information in each
> element's attributes.  If there's no schema, there's no
> other way, is there?

With SGML, you can also use IMPLICIT LINK.  This way the
architectural control attributes don't have to clutter up
the DTD either.

(The downside is that, with most existing tools, the <!LINKTYPE>
declaration has to appear in the document instance.  I've always
thought it would be useful to allow LINK declarations to be
specified as an argument to the parser; although the SGML Standard
doesn't say you can do this, it doesn't say you *can't* either.)

(I've also always thought that the AFDR is simply a reformulation
of what EXPLICIT LINK was trying to do all along.  It's too bad
the latter was so fatally flawed; the syntax was rather nice IMO.)


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace terminology
• Next by Date: DTD validation without a DOCTYPE
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread