[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- To: simonstl@simonstl.com
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> I've found myself in a somewhat odd situation, where I'd like to be able to
> include empty (i.e., no value) as a choice in a list of enumerated
> possibilities. It doesn't seem possible. (Empty is not a token.)
>
> It might be nice to declare:
> <!ATTLIST myElement
> myAtt (0|1|2) #IMPLIED>
>
> but it isn't clear to me what the implications are. If I just write:
> <myElement />
>
> I haven't provided a 'wrong' value for myAtt, but I haven't in fact
> provided a value that matches an entry in the list.
That is all right: in fact, it's commonplace. A declaration like
<!ATTLIST OL
compact (compact) #IMPLIED>
such as is found in the DTD for XHTML 1.0 Transitional,
means that either <OL> or <OL compact="compact"> is legal.
> I may simply be lacking a key set of assumptions, but I feel like I could
> read the spec either way. Does no default value mean that there is no
> value to check against constraints, or does it imply a null value that will
> violate constraints of this sort?
The former.
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|