RE: [XML 1.1] Allowable element names

Charles wrote:
> Yes, in XML Accessibility Guidelines we do encourage people 
> to have a schema
> definition - particularly in Guideline 4 - 

From which it may be possible to retrieve element information.

Pragmatically, only a minority of todays XML documents do reference
the schema/DTD from which they were derived.
I don't believe this to be a reliable method of obtaining
element descriptions.

regards DaveP

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, William Loughborough wrote:
>   At 08:59 AM 6/20/2002 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>   >c) Don't require a schema for every XML usage.
>   Perhaps "require" is too harsh, but we ought do something 
> to encourage
>   "schematization permeation" of "things 'X'"?
>   --
>   Love.
>   It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!
> -- 
> Charles McCathieNevile  
> phone: +61 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative  
> fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia 
> Antipolis Cedex, France)


NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227


14th June 2002 is RNIB Look Loud Day - visit to
find out all about it.

Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 03:32:15 UTC