[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Eric van der Vlist scripsit:
> On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 17:36, David Carlisle wrote:
> > In general yes order is always relevant in XML. A particular vocabulary
> > might specify that order is not important for some elements but it can't
> > use any of the usual schema languages (xsd,relax ng, dtd,...) to say that,
> > it has to just specify it in prose somewhere.
>
> I am not sure I understand what you mean here.
>
> You can use the RELAX NG "interleave" patterns to say that a schema
> processor shouldn't check the relative order of the elements with
> virtually no restrictions.
Declaring the content model of an element as a & b means that either
<a/><b/> or <b/><a/> is valid. What it does not and cannot say is
whether these two forms mean the same thing to the application.
In this sense, all XML content models are like ASN.1 SEQUENCEs. The
ASN.1 SET, OTOH, is analogous to XML attribute lists, where it is
indeed the case that <a foo="1" bar="2"/> and <a bar="2" foo="1"/>
mean the same thing to (normal) applications.
--
"Take two turkeys, one goose, four John Cowan
cabbages, but no duck, and mix them http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
together. After one taste, you'll duck jcowan@reutershealth.com
soup the rest of your life." http://www.reutershealth.com
--Groucho
|
