[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: D.2 DTD summaries (a la NSGML)?



> Date:         Thu, 24 Oct 96 14:09:05 CDT
> From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
> 
> D.2 Should XML provide shorthand ways of summarizing the salient
> points a document's DTD?
        ^
        of
> 
>   * empty elements
>   * mixed-content or element-content elements
>   * required attributes
>   * default attribute values
>   * identity of ID and IDREF(S) attributes
>   * identity of CONREF attributes (if allowed)
>   * other?
> 
> 
> If so,
>   * D.2 a.  Should such short-hand summaries be required?
>   * D.2 b.  Allowed in place of DTDs?
>   * D.2 c.  Allowed in addition to DTDs?
>   * D.2 d.  If so, is inconsistency between the DTD and the summary
>             an error?
>   * D.2.e.  A reportable error?
> 
> 

I can't tell if the question is asking if we should consider partial
DTDs using the syntax of 8879 DTDs or if it is asking if we should
develop another syntax for partial DTDs.  I'm assuming the former.

I think we should allow partial DTDs using the syntax of 8879 DTDs.

They should not be required, since we seem bent on allowing at least
some processing of XML without any DTD.

For me, it doesn't make sense to talk of partial DTDs in addition
to (full) DTDs, since for me a full DTD is just a partial DTD that
has declarations for all markup in the given instance.  Either a
tool insists on declarations for everything and complains when it
encounters some markup for which there is no declaration, or it
manages to silently plug along when it encounters something for
which there is no declaration.

So, I go for D.2.b. provided the syntax for our "shorthand ways
of summarizing" is 8879 declarations.

(If my assumption about syntax is wrong, let me know, and I'll
re-evaluate my response.)