[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jimmy Cerra wrote:
> Why aren't defined patterns named with QNames? That would make
> portability so much easier! Such as:
>
> ] <pattern xmlns:jfc="My Namespace for Patterns">
> ] <define name="jfc:mypattern" />
> ] </pattern>
How would this aid portability? Or, how do I import a namespace for
validation purposes?
> Why isn't there a more complete datatyping language? Sure, W3C XML
> Schema can often be ugly; however, it can also be elegant too. Why
> can't I specify unions and extensions of XML Schema datatypes? Why
> can't I specify non-whitespace separated lists? Such as (I.E.
> "NCName|anyURI"):
>
> ] <list separator="|">
> ] <data type="NCname" />
> ] <data type="anyURI" />
> ] </list>
IMO that's the Right Thing. Keeping types that operate over elment
content/attributes well apart from structural validation is a big
big win for RNG. If you really these types you can create them, or a
whole library. Jing and MSV include basic WXS types for
convenience,. The only extra types I wish I had to hand are for
email/URI validation, but it's not like they're hard to plugin, were
I bothered.
> Why can't I do that in Relax NG? I understand that it was designed to
> eliminate perceived annoyances with W3C XML Schema; however, Relax NG
> has a bunch of annoyances to call its own. :-/
I don't these are they however!
Bill de hÓra
|
