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

Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract

• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:37:12 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200209290419.AAA09297@m...>
• Organization: Jeni Tennison Consulting Ltd
• References: <200209290419.AAA09297@m...>
• Reply-to: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

John,

> Attributes of type NOTATION have a value declared by a NOTATION
> declaration in the DTD, which specifies a system id and/or a public
> id. What for? The idea was supposed to be that the system and/or
> public id specified what the datatype was, without necessarily
> dereferencing it (the same thing later reinvented for namespace
> names). But the reason for the NOTATION attribute in the first place
> was to say that the content of this element was of the type
> specified therein.

So, aside from it being an obvious travesty to shoe-horn them into
DTDs, could you use the W3C XML Schema data types in a DTD by
declaring a NOTATION? The equivalent of:

  datatypes xs = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes"

  element date { xs:date }

being something along the lines of:

  <!NOTATION xs.date
             PUBLIC 'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes#date'>

  <!ELEMENT date (#PCDATA)>
  <!ATTLIST date
    type NOTATION (xs.date) #FIXED 'xs.date'>

(Please correct; not being an SGML weenie, I've never using
NOTATIONs.)
    
I gather that you couldn't use notations to specify the type of
attributes?

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Notations for datatypes
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Previous by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread