Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: email@example.com (Ron Bourret)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:46:59 +0200
Toby Speight wrote:
> Peter> At 17:27 04/06/98 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> >> Hmmm. This sounds like the "root" (my syntax) or "RootElement"
> >> (Ron's syntax) attribute in XSchema is a Bad Thing. Perhaps it
> >> should be removed?
> Peter> Yup :-). I have not commented on the current proposals because
> Peter> I wanted them to anneal before public comment. *For describing
> Peter> a DTD*, here should be no requirement to define a <root> of any
> Peter> sort, only <element>, <attribute>, <contentSpec> and possibly
> Peter> <entity> and <notation> according to how people think.
> I can forsee applications where one might say, "Please send me documents
> conforming to the FOO schema," in much the same way as one requests
> LaTeX or Word formats these days. In which case, one usually needs also
> to specify the root element (this is implied in LaTeX or Word). I don't
> see any harm in the schema having a default root (on the understanding
> that documents may, if they wish, use a different root).
A default root might fly. Certainly a mandatory root is wrong.
In many ways, the XSchema PI is like DOCTYPE -- it points to a document
containing the structure of your document. As Simon suggested, it should
therefore have a way to specify the root element, similar to the doc-type in the
Unfortunately, these raises conflicts between DOCTYPE and the XSchema PI, since
they are two different ways to do the same thing. For example:
<!DOCTYPE a SYSTEM "myxschema.xsc"> // root element is a
<?XSchema myxschema.xsc a> // root element is a
<?XSchema myxschema.xsc> // root element is a
<?XSchema myxschema.xsc b> // root element is ???
<!DOCTYPE a SYSTEM "myxschema.xsc">
<?XSchema yourxschema.xsc b> // ?????
I don't like telling people they can use DOCTYPE or XSchema PIs but not both. I
also don't like having to write a long list of conflict resolutions -- it just
makes XSchemas harder to use. In both cases, it feels like we are imposing
requirements not in the XML spec. Ideas?
-- Ron Bourret
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)