[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dave Pawson scripsit:
> I still haven't met a document that says 'why' AF's.
> They do this or that for you.
They allow you to design documents that use your own element names,
attribute names, and (to a certain extent) structure, while still
making it possible to validate them against one or more so-called
meta-DTDs after running a highly restricted class of transformations
against them. In this way, a standards-creating group can specify
a meta-DTD instead of a normal DTD (a meta-DTD has a few extensions
that normal DTDs don't allow), and if your document is transformable
into a version that validates against the meta-DTD, it can be
interoperable with very different-looking documents that also validate
against the meta-DTD.
The allowed transformations are:
1) to replace an element name with an attribute value, either specified
or defaulted;
2) to replace an element with its content (either children or character
content or neither);
3) to replace character content with the value of an attribute or
vice versa;
4) to rename attributes.
I'm doing this on the fly and probably omitting some details.
The details of the transformation can be specified with a PI.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
-- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
|
