Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question!
>Eve, your idea is an interesting one:
>> <?XML ATTLIST PrimaryIE
>> xml (linkto) "linkto"
>> xmlnames CDATA #FIXED "linkends ptr"
>> scheme (intid) "intid"
>but I think I see a problem with it -- XML documents would use these
>extra attributes, but they would not be declared to the SGML parser,
>and the result would not be valid SGML.
>Now, at one point, a partial DTD wasn't allowed -- it had to be all
>or nothing. If that's still the case, the rules on undeclared entities
>are inconsistent. But if it isn't the case, I think we must either
>(1) apply pressure for multiple Attlists, and help draw up a draft
> amendment if necessary;
>(2) until then, stick to markup that is clearly different.
> <?-XML- URI element A attribute HREF?>
> <?-XML- URI element FOOTNOTE attribute HREF?>
> <?-XML- SYSTEM element IMAGE attribute SRC action embed?>
> or even
> <?-XML-XHL- -XML-XHL-URI- -XML-XHL-ELEMENT A ..... ugh?>
I see your point. Does this mean that without multiple ATTLISTs,
there's no point in our even defining architectures?
Then again, if we only allowed #FIXED attributes (and possible the
other "fixed" token value method that I used above) in the ATTLIST
PI, and specified that these attributes not appear in the instance,
SGML wouldn't have a problem with it. Yuck...too many if's. I
think I just talked myself out of it.