[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XSchema: New draft of John Cowan's proposal
John> John Cowan <URL:mailto:cowan@l...> => In article <357594B7.E555C044@l...>, John wrote: John> The new URL is at John> <URL:http://www.ccil.org/%7Ecowan/XSchema-draft-19980603.html>. John> John> Changes include adopting the ID/IDREF model, renaming NAME to REF, John> splitting off ENUM from VALUE (for use in ENUMTYPE elements), using John> an attribute for *, ?, and + rather than elements, forbidding SEQ John> within SEQ and CHOICE within CHOICE, getting NOTATION attributes John> represented. I like the changes; no argument here. [I cheated by reading only the DTD; I assume the prose is similar to that of XSchema-draft-19980601] I'm not sure if the name "VALUE" for the default value of an attribute is the clearest possible: John> <!ELEMENT ATT ((TYPE|ENUMTYPE)?, (REQUIRED|IMPLIED|FIXED|VALUE))> For somebody reading an actual Xschema, it might be assumed that VALUE represented a fixed, rather than default, value - particularly if FIXED never occurs in that particular Xschema. Would FIXEDVALUE and DEFAULTVALUE be better names for FIXED and VALUE? Another issue which different people will have different opinions on is the content of the DOCTYPE element - instead of having freely mixable content of (ELEMENT|ENTITY|NOTATION)*, it might be better to enforce the grouping of declarations: (NOTATION*, ENTITY*, ELEMENT*). What do other people think? John> Still to be dealt with: ..., embedded doco in XSchemas, ... Can I have a first cut at this? <!-- use #PCDATA for this now; we can loosen the content model as the spec evolves (in particular, we will want to link to IDs elsewhere in the XSchema --> <!ELEMENT DOC (#PCDATA)> <!ELEMENT DOCTYPE (DOC?, (ELEMENT|ENTITY|NOTATION)*)> <!ELEMENT ELEMENT (DOC?, (EMPTY|ANY|MIXED|REF|CHOICE|SEQ), (ATT)*)> <!ELEMENT ATT (DOC?, (TYPE|ENUMTYPE)?, (REQUIRED|IMPLIED|FIXED|VALUE))> Do individual ENUM values need documenting? Or is it sufficient to have the DOC in ATT describe them? Do entities and notations need documentation? A final comment, on conformance: should valid documents having a DTD which uses the XSchema DTD as a base architecture be considered conformant? Or should we insist that only the results of architectural forms processing can qualify? (Using architectural forms means that an internal subset may be used if it is compatible with the base architecture. Incidentally, I think an internal subset should be allowed in conforming XSchema documents, if it contains only general entity definitions (and notations?); as it is, entities must be expanded.) -- xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|