[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray scripsit:
> (1) Token or not
> (2) If token, single or multiple
> (3) If token, referential or not
> (4) In any case, subject to data content notation or not
But if multiple tokens, then the data content notation should apply
to each token, *not* to the entire list of tokens. That's my point.
Also we need lexical types TOKEN and TOKENS, not just NMTOKEN(S).
> This would be radically changing the purpose of notation declarations,
> which is associating a local document specific name with an external
> identifier, the latter being a formal means of "stating" a concept.
I agree this is unnecessary if you allow TOKENS as a lexical type.
> <!ENTITY % foo ' A | B | C' >
> <!ENTITY % bar ', D, E' >
> <!ENTITY % quux '%foo; %bar;' >
>
> <!ATTLIST (%quux) blort CDATA #IMPLIED>
What is the difference between | and , separators? The only one that
makes sense to me is | (choice).
> IOW, I would reserve the infix separators ('|', ',' and '&') for model
> groups only, where they are indeed convenient. We *are* whiteboarding
> syntax, no?
We are, though only in the trial-balloon mode. The Committee isn't
ready to think about syntax yet.
> Yes, but there's more to it. Does/will the schema purport to describe
> "everything" in the document, or just some determinate part of it?
Good question.
> I'd say the application invokes it, through some interface that allows
> specification of the relevant declarations (and I suppose, the root). But
> I don't see how this is relevant to DTD syntax.
Well, the declaration of doc-elem-form is inside the DTD.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
