[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au> writes:
> The trouble with schemas (i.e. schemas that don't support some
> notion of variation or phase, i.e. everything except perhaps Schematron
> and DTDs) is that they provide no real support for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> information items in the important class "this may be interesting
> to someone, especially a human, but we are not promising what
> format it has, which locations it can go into, and we don't
> want to commit that future revisions of even the current version
> of our software will keep this item, and we probably don't want
> to document it either: caveat emptor"
>
> As someone else mentioned, as a schema progresses, then it becomes
> clearer which information items should have been first class (elements
> and attributes). But "comment conventions" (and PIs) say
^^
> "we think this is bathwater: if you think you can find babies, be it
> on your own head."
What's wrong with using PIs for that?
Incidentally, some WXS experts might say that you want to allow any
elements in namespaces other than yours at any position in the
document, and attributes in other namespaces on any elements precisely
because this allows "I don't know what it is but I included it anyway"
information "anywhere" in the document.
Ari.
|
