[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
Arjun Ray scripsit: > <!NOTATION integer PUBLIC "whatever" > > > <!ATTLIST foo > bar DATA integer #IMPLIED > > > The full syntax allows the data content notation ('DATA integer') to be > qualified with data attributes (an attribute specification list within a > pair of '[' and ']' delimiters). Note that the DATA keyword automatically > provides for extensibility in that the notation name ('integer') is "user > defined" in a separate declaration. Ah, I hoped to snare an actual SGML weenie into the discussion. I'm glad this is easy to do. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap142t85r6glirbadehjpbq0p0g0936tm4@4... I will examine this. > | 4) Datatype lists. In either #2 or #3 context, a simple datatype name > | can be replaced by "LIST(name)" to indicate a whitespace-separated > | list of strings matching the datatype. IDREFS is equal to LIST(IDREF), > | and ENTITIES is equal to LIST(ENTITY). > > Is this definitional, or a means to specify a list of user defined names? > I'm not seeing the greater utility of a literal 'LIST(IDREF)' over a plain > 'IDREFS'. In the other case, why do we need the 'LIST' prefix when the > parens provide enough syntactic marking? Definitional. LIST(integer) would mean that the content/value is a whitespace-separated sequence of integers. It generalizes the ad hoc -S ending on the built-in datatypes. This could be migrated from ATTLIST and ELEMENT to NOTATION: we could have something like <!NOTATION integers #LIST integer> for example. > | 8) Restore multiple element and attribute names separated by |s. > > I'd prefer a whitespace-separated list of tokens within parens. In fact > I'd like this for all name group and nametoken group usages, instead of an > infix separator. What is the precedent here? > | General issue: Should there be some way to indicate candidate roots? > | In existing DTDs, any element can be a root. > > Why is this a problem? I admit I've never understood the issue: is this > deference to the common fallacy of viewing the FPI of an external subset > as "declaring a doctype"? Remember that we are dealing with external validation here: we don't want to check whether an incoming document is self-consistent, but rather whether it's consistent with some schema we already have in hand. Without some way to notate the root, an XHTML DTD would accept the document: <p>foo</p> The issue is whether this specification should be inside the DTD or only provided directly to the validator, making it look like "Validate document X against DTD Y, requiring that the root element be Z." > Probably irrelevant. The contents of a document type declaration are > specific to an instance. Validation with respect to a fixed set of > declarations is a separate exercise (as in ArchForms). The issue would be > how to declare that fixed set. That however is what I am discussing here. In external validation, you do not want the document to "declare" the set of declarations it is to be validated against: rather, it is the application that declares it. -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
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
|