OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] RDDL and document types was : Re: [xml-dev] Thetask to be

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> At 3:40 PM -0800 1/22/02, Michael Brennan wrote:
> >>  Perhaps an attribute:
> >>
> >>  <root rddl:doctype="....a RDDL directory of 'document types' ...">
> >
> >I don't particularly like this. For one, the rddl:doctype attribute is
> >essentially a processing directive. I think a PI would be more
> >appropriate. (XML Schema set a bad precedent in this regard, IMHO.) I'm
> >also not convinced that a specialized attribute or PI and specialized
> >purpose are needed.
> >
> An attribute would only make sense if this could be applied to
> multiple elements in the document and to non-root elements. But if
> we're talking about *document* types as opposed to *element* types,
> then the scope should be document wide, and a processing instruction
> is appropriate.
> --

Good point. An element type is certainly related to its qualifying
namespace name, and for the type averse, this is simply the XML 1.0
definition of element type: its name. So one could say that RDDL is
currently useful for describing element types and the addition of a PI
could make it useful for describing document types.

A message entitled "Strategies for a lowly XML document" is forthcoming.
Following this it would be good for the list to decide whether a RDDL PI is
something worth including in the next release of the specification.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS