RE: #ANY (was Re: Thoughts on namespaces)

This is a good start on thinking about the problem.  My mail was
intended to define the problem more sharply, and clarify the distinction
between unique names and validation of their use.

--Andrew Layman
   AndrewL@microsoft.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rick Jelliffe [SMTP:ricko@allette.com.au]
> Sent:	Tuesday, June 03, 1997 10:05 AM
> To:	Andrew Layman; 'lex@www.copsol.com'; w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> Subject:	#ANY (was Re: Thoughts on namespaces)
> 
>  
> > From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
> 
> > I need to be able to cheaply mix elements from several schemata
> inside a
> > parent element.  The proposal below does not accomplish that, while
> a
> > qualified name mechanism does. 
> 
> Would this extension to SGML allow what you want?  
> 
> Perhaps ISO 8879 should be revised slightly to make the "#ANY"
> declared content 
> type keyword usable inside content models, with the meaning that it is
> one of any element.
> This is fairly natural-looking to my eye, anyway.
> 
> E.g:
>      <!ELEMENT   X   - -  ( #ANY?, #PCDATA)>
> would allow
>      <X>world</X>
> and
>      <X><X>hello</X>world</X>
> and also
>      <X><OTHER::X>hello</OTHER::X>world</X>
> 
> I think the trick is to not
> throw out any babies with the bathwater: we want to be able to
> constrain an 
> element's content model to say that "at this point someone else can
> add their
> own elements, but not there". That keeps the strong typing that SGML
> people 
> love so much (much text processing is only practical if there is a
> very tight and 
> strict content model: unconstrained mixing is a big step backwards),
> but gives
> (in combination with, e.g, the Takahashi proposal) what you want, I
> think.
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Jelliffe
> 
> P.S. Actually, I favour the CONCUR syntax for the instance.
>      <X><(OTHER)X>hello</(OTHER)X>world</X>
> but that is a side-issue.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 1997 17:47:06 UTC