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

Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract

• To: jeni@j...
• Subject: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 01:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jcowan@r... (John Cowan), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <48225068110.20020929063712@j...> from "Jeni Tennison" at Sep 29, 2002 06:37:12 AM

Jeni Tennison scripsit:

> 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? 

Sure, why not?

>   <!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.)

Looks right to me, but I'm not an SGML weenie either.

> I gather that you couldn't use notations to specify the type of
> attributes?

Not any way I know of.

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan  http://www.reutershealth.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• References:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

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