- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:29:31 -0500
- To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
- Cc: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
On Thursday 05 December 2002 12:36 pm, John Boyer wrote:
> However, the XForms guys immediately wanted to know why we wouldn't
> derive a type from NMTOKENS to describe the content model, so I thought
> I'd put it forward.
With respect to generally enabling the '#' character, I don't think we could
derive from NMTOKENS [2] as I'm not sure how to preclude the occurrence of
a lexical value [2]. We could go back to token [3] and derive from there,
but then we would have to say myNMTOKEN is the whole set in XML1.0 plus the
'#' character. and myNMTOKENS is a a union of myNMTOKEN separated by white
space. I'm not too keen on that.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#NMTOKENS
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dt-lexical-space
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#token
With respect to adding our specific '#default' token, I suppose we could
create type PrefixListType as NMTOKENS + '#default'. Something like:
<attribute name="PrefixListType">
<simpleType>
<union>
<simpleType>
<restriction base='NMSTOKENS'/>
</simpleType>
<simpleType>
<restriction base='string'>
<enumeration value='#default'/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</union>
</simpleType>
</attribute>
(I have no idea that this works absent testing/playing.) However, I figure
the original creators of NMTOKEN had a good reason for preventing '#' from
appearing there... and what's the benefit?
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:31:30 UTC