xml-dev - Elements cannot be described more than once in DTD, right ?

[Sebastien Sahuc <ssahuc@imediation.com>]

Hello,

I have an element (<operations>) than can have different set of sub
element. How can I describe it in DTD ?

For example :
<affiliate>
  <operations>
    <get/>
    <set/>
  </operations>
</affiliate>

and : 

<merchant>
  <operations>
    <signup/>
  </operations>
</merchant>

How can I express in DTD that affiliate operations in 'set' and 'get',
and that merchant has only the 'signup' ?

Thank for any reply you should provide.

Sebastien Sahuc
ssahuc@imediation.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua E. Smith [mailto:jesmith@kaon.com]
> Sent: mardi 21 septembre 1999 22:26
> To: XML Developers' List
> Subject: Re: Attributes vs. text content (Was Re: RFC: Attributes
and
> XML-RPC)
> 
> 
> In my XML-conformant programming language (Nimble, mentioned 
> here a couple
> days ago at http://www.kaon.com/SDK ), I did what seemed to 
> me a pretty
> neat thing using attributes and elements together.
> 
> In many cases, an object (represented by an Element) needs to 
> reference
> another object.  I allow the Nimble programmer to do this either as:
> 
> <Image name='splash_screen' etc... />
> <Application image='splash_screen' etc... />
> 
> -or-
> 
> <Application etc...>
>   <Image etc.../>
> </Application>
> 
> -or even-
> 
> <Application etc...>
>   <Image name='splash_screen' etc... />
> </Application>
> <SomethingElse image='splash_screen' etc... />
> 
> The first approach is generally only useful when a machine is 
> generating
> the program (export from a 3D modeling tool, in my case).  Or 
> if the Nimble
> programmer is name-happy.
> 
> The second is just like XML-RPC.  Simple, elegant.
> 
> The last approach is particularly powerful, since it allows 
> me to create
> graphs  in what would otherwise be just a tree language.
> 
> The simple ID and IDREF DTD constructs (along with an 
> #IMPLIED) then allow
> validating XML editors to make sure you use defined names.
> 
> Doing this without attributes would be a real trick, and not nearly
as
> elegant.
> 
> So while I agree that sticking to just elements or just 
> attributes can be
> elegant in some contexts, neither rule is going to be the 
> most beautiful in
> every case.
> 
> 
> -Joshua Smith
> 
> 
> 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)
> 

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)