- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:27:09 -0500
- To: "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
At 3:48 PM -0800 2/23/02, Piotr Kaminski wrote: >That's interesting, I didn't know. However, I think my original point >still stands. If you're using PIs to make DC annotations, how would you >"annotate the annotations" so to speak if nested PIs are not permitted? The annotation vocabulary could be explicitly designed to be recursive if this seems important. >But wouldn't that completely defeat the original point of the PIs, which >was that they're "outside" the scope of validation? So what happens if I >now inherit an unmodifiable schema that specifies what PIs are allowed >where -- how do I add the custom new PIs necessary for my application? I >think we've come full circle. :-) > There can be more than one schema for a document. There can be more than one validation layer. There is more than one schema language. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 19:31:23 UTC