Re: D.2 DTD summaries (a la NSGML)?
On Thu, 24 Oct 96 14:09:05 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
>On 30 October 1996, the ERB will vote to decide the following
>question. A straw poll indicates the question needs further
>discussion in the work group.
>D.2 Should XML provide shorthand ways of summarizing the salient
>points a document's DTD?
> * 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?
No. Use the simplified markup declaration syntax.
> * D.2 a. Should such short-hand summaries be required?
No. The DTD can be used if they aren't present.
> * D.2 b. Allowed in place of DTDs?
Yes. If you must have them, they cannot coexist with DTDs for the reason given
> * D.2 c. Allowed in addition to DTDs?
No, because the two could conflict.
> * D.2 d. If so, is inconsistency between the DTD and the summary
> an error?
> * D.2.e. A reportable error?
Yes, which would require you to parse both of them, so why have the shorthand.
Conclusion: Stick with DTDs, but allow the external subset or all of the DTD to
be ignored if not needed to parse the document instance.
Charles F. Goldfarb * Information Management Consulting * +1(408)867-5553
13075 Paramount Drive * Saratoga CA 95070 * USA
International Standards Editor * ISO 8879 SGML * ISO/IEC 10744 HyTime
Prentice-Hall Series Editor * CFG Series on Open Information Management