Re: [xml-dev] The illusion of simplicity and low cost in datadesign and

["C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>]

Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> writes:

> Even in XML Schemas, the datatype type NOTATION has the caveat "For
> compatibility (see Terminology (§1.4)) NOTATION should be used only on
> attributes and should only be used in schemas with no target
> namespace." Which makes it clear that it is a sunset feature limited
> to replicating what DTDs provided.

I'm not sure what that "Even" is doing in that sentence -- are you
seeking to want to suggest that failure to understand and use NOTATION
is more surprising in the XSD working group than in any other group?

As you will doubtless remember (since you were a member of the working
group), there were a lot of people in the XML Schema WG with what we
might call a limited appreciation of anything present in DTDs.  And it
was already clear that very few people understood how to use NOTATION
declarations usefully (whether in XML or in SGML).

> In any case, even embedded NOTATIONS were supported, you need to look
> in a schema or markup declarations so it is not inline. (By embedded I
> mean the content is in an element, by inline I mean that the the
> markup to say what the notation is at the same location.)

If you have no objection to placing information of this kind inline,
instead of factoring it out to avoid duplication, then why not just
place the schema inline?  There is nothing in the XSD spec that prevents
inline schemas:  the term 'schema document' is used because most people
will want the schema out of line, not inline, but its extension is
effectively any xsd:schema element.  Spreading it out so that the
declaration of an element is repeated for every instance of that element
type may, I admit, be a bit trickier.

-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com