Bill Lindsey wrote:
> >> * Could this property be also be obtained for
> >> elements?
>
> > Sure, why not?
>
> Either you misunderstood my question, or you might
> reconsider using "document type" to name this property.
Right; I usually call this (the principle representation form
of an element) an "element type" (but not in mixed company :-)
Having thought more about the second question, I now believe that
the only thing that's intrinsic to an XML document is
the stuff that's manifest in the parse tree: GIs, attributes,
and content. Everything else -- the principal type, auxilliary
types, architectural forms, etc., -- are imposed by the observer.
--Joe English
