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

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



On Thu, 24 Oct 96 14:09:05 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
wrote:

>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.

>If so,
>  * 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
below.

>  * 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?

Yes.

>  * 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
--


References: