- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:59:23 +0000
- To: paul@arbortext.com (Paul Grosso), w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 12:32 PM 24/09/96 CDT, Paul Grosso wrote: >For example, if I'm given an XML document and partial declarations >equivalent to the following: ... [I've moved Paul's example down because it's really not what I'm addressing] ... >1. Am I right that the logical equivalent of what I describe is what's > expected by an XML editing tool? I think it is outside the scope of this work to define what the expectations should be for an XML editing tool. I don't think that experience or wisdom exists in this group or the world at large to understand that question, let alone write it into a standard. My personal bias would be that if there is no DTD, all the tool could possibly do would be to test "well-formed-ness", i.e. no syntax errors nor mis-nested elements. If there is a DTD, the problem is well-understood. Trying to adduce grammars from instances is very far from easy and of questionable utility. -Cheers, Tim ><!DOCTYPE doc [ > <!ELEMENT doc (title, section*)> > <!ELEMENT section (para*)> > <!ELEMENT title (#PCDATA)> > <!ELEMENT para (#PCDATA)> >]> ><doc> ><title>The Title</title> ><chapter> ><title>Chapter Title</title> ><section> ><para>abc<emphasis>MNO</emphasis>xyz.</para> ></section> ></chapter> ></doc> > >then my XML editor would probably intuit and use the following DTD: > > <!ENTITY % undeclared_elements "chapter, emphasis"> > > <!ELEMENT doc (title, section*) +(%undeclared_elements)> > <!ELEMENT section (para*)> > <!ELEMENT title (#PCDATA)> > <!ELEMENT para (#PCDATA)> > > <!ELEMENT (%undeclared_elements) ANY>
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 1996 03:01:54 UTC