[
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.
Jonathan
|
