[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray scripsit:
> Does this help organize processing of instances? If it doesn't, how =
> could
> it help expressiveness in composing schemas?
Processing isn't everything. XML documents are supposed to be human readable.
> Overloading is too geeky not to be confusing.
On the contrary, overloading is a fundamental linguistic characteristic.
There is hardly a word in any language that has a single narrowly
construed meaning, unless indeed it is part of the scientific vocabulary.
>
> |> I note that you dodged the question again. ;-)
> |=20
> | Are you asking for my *personal* views?
>
> Any view that propounds a coherent argument (and thus, inter alia,
> explains the motivation to treat attributes and child elements alike.)
I gave the motivation: because people do not agree on what belongs in
child elements and what belongs in attributes, it is appropriate to
design systems that can cope with information in either place.
A schema language that can handle content models like
attribute id {xsd:ID} | element id {xsd:ID}
is therefore useful. But this is really quite OT. I have no desire
to allow DTDs to do everything that RELAX NG can do; I was attempting
to point out some fundamental limitations of the DTD meta-model.
--
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_
|
