Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: XML Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 09:52:43 -0400
Ron Bourret wrote:
> 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
> DOCTYPE declaration.
> Unfortunately, these raises conflicts between DOCTYPE and the XSchema PI, since
> they are two different ways to do the same thing.
I think this is just a special case of XSchema PI vs !DOCTYPE conflict
in general. After all, a document might insist that it conforms
to a.dtd and b.xschema.xml, where a is not in any way transformable
to b. With a well-chosen document and a and b, the document might
even pass validation.
> 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?
I say, give the users plenty of rope, and if they hang themselves,
they hang themselves. However, I would say that a document conforms
to an XSchema if its actual root is an element defined in the XSchema,
even if the XSchema-PI doesn't declare any root.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)