Lists Home |
Date Index |
Richard Tobin wrote:
> I disagree. To invent a document format in which the order of
> attributes is significant and then claim that it conforms to XML would
> be misleading to say the least, since it would not be interoperable with
> the majority of XML tools (which don't preserve attribute order).
Whether the order of attributes is significant or not,
would that not be a question of which schema one applies?
Obviously, the DTD schema language is defined as part of
the XML spec, and it allows to express certain ordering
constraints and not others. However, if one invented a schema
language where one could express ordering constraints for
attributes, then an XML document could conform to such a schema
and still be called at least a well-formed XML document.
Maybe the confusion is caused by having the DTD language
defined as part of the XML spec.