[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:14 23/01/2002 -0500, 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.
I don't think it's as clear cut as this. Imagine that your application, for
whatever reason, wants to package several XML documents together into one
overall document. You might then want to write:
<DocSet rddl:doctype="http://whatever/DocSet";>
<doc1 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype1";>
:
</doc1>
<doc2 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype2";>
:
</doc2>
</DocSet>
I.e. the document type wants to be associated with a whole (sub)tree of an
XML document, and not just the document as a whole.
Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the document type is
implied by an element type because, for example, the contents of some
<html> elements will be plain old documentation, and others will be RDDL
resource directories.
--
Cheers,
John
|
