Re: [xml-dev] DTD vs XSD: No Duplicate Types in (Mixed) ContentModels

[Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:33:29 +0100, Maik Stührenberg wrote:
> Regarding the discussion about XML 2.0 and/or microXML that went on 
> the list some weeks ago, it would be interesting to see if anyone 
> would be interested to postpone this non fatal error requirement? Of 
> course this would only be possible for XML 2.0 (not for microXML as 
> far as I understood the recent discussion)...

I believe that DTD validation is better described as "recognition" than 
as "parsing."  Certainly that's true for RNG.  For W3C XML Schema, the 
existence of the PSVI effectively means that the result of validation 
is a parse tree, not merely the binary 'valid/invalid' provided by 
either DTD or RNG (one might argue that attribute typing is more 
consistent with parsing than with recognition, but I don't believe that 
attributes generally participate in the "unique particle" conundrum).

Since W3C XML Schema has to supply annotations as the consequence of 
validation (the PSVI), it cannot accept ambiguous attribution (an 
extension might be able to do so; such an extension would presumably 
permit multiple annotations, or something of that nature (the situation 
would become rapidly more complex for ambiguous particles inside 
ambiguous particles, unless the annotation is delivered as a separate 
'tree' rather than as decorations of a single tree)).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
You like the taste of danger, it shines like sugar on your lips,
and you like to stand in the line of fire
just to show you can shoot straight from your hip.
There must be a 1000 things you would die for; 
I can hardly think of two.
		-- Emily Saliers