[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XSchema Spec, Sections 2.0 and 2.1 (Draft 1)
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, John Cowan wrote: > > Here's an example. Let's say that some XSchema named "foo" > declares that the "Auml" internal entity has the value "Ä". > A document purporting to conform to this XSchema might define "Auml" > as "Å", either in its internal subset or in its external subset. > Such a document would *fail* validation against "foo". Without > entity declarations in "foo", that test would not be possible. Why would you want to do that? Entities explicitly live in the user's namespace and I think that it is good that they should have complete control over their names. I can't imagine why a schema designer would complain that they were using the "wrong" definition. It seems to me that that would be like complaining that they used the "wrong" namespace prefix. SAX is relevant because it represents the communities combined idea of what a typical application should expect from a typical parser. I can see why an editor or database system might want more, but I don't think that a schema language should. It isn't "in the XML spirit" to require calisthetics from implementors for minor gains (verifying entity replacement strikes me as a very minor gain). Paul Prescod 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
|