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

Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:23:58 +0000
• In-reply-to: <200206140411.AAA24176@m...>
• References: <alpiguk12naljkff65g3d0toln9obgghtr@4...> <200206140411.AAA24176@m...>

John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray scripsit:

| But if multiple tokens, then the data content notation should apply
| to each token, *not* to the entire list of tokens. 

Agreed.  

|>   <!ENTITY % foo  ' A | B | C' >
|>   <!ENTITY % bar  ', D, E' >
|>   <!ENTITY % quux  '%foo; %bar;' >
|> 
|>   <!ATTLIST (%quux)  blort CDATA #IMPLIED>
| 
| What is the difference between | and , separators? 

Here, none.  Which, IMHO, is just unnecessary uglification.

| The only one that makes sense to me is | (choice).

Semantically, yes.  But what happens in SGML is that the same PE gets used
in model groups (with one purpose) and in ATTLISTs (with another): this is
why the syntax of a parenthesized set of associated element types allows
any mix-and-match of separators from model group syntax.  (I suppose my
real agenda is putting PEs out to pasture, so I'd like a syntax that works
*against* "re-suing" PEs for model groups in other declarations where
there is no semantic other than choice.)

|> I'd say the application invokes it, through some interface that allows
|> specification of the relevant declarations (and I suppose, the root). 
|> But I don't see how this is relevant to DTD syntax.
| 
| Well, the declaration of doc-elem-form is inside the DTD.

Actually, it isn't.  There is no requirement (AFAIK) that the ArchUse PI
appear within the subsets of a document type declaration - it can be a
free standing PI in the document instance (ie another part of the prolog.)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by Date: Re: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile
• Previous by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread