RE: nist-include-40 & nist-include-39

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xinclude-20041220/#include_element

says:

"The children property of the xi:include element may include a single
xi:fallback element; the appearance of more than one xi:fallback
element, an xi:include element, or any other element from the XInclude
namespace is a fatal error. Other content (text, processing
instructions, comments, elements not in the XInclude namespace,
descendants of child elements) is not constrained by this specification
and is ignored by the XInclude processor, that is, it has no effect on
include processing, and does not appear in the children properties of
the result infoset."

That is the normative text, and specifically allows children elements.
The spec goes on to say:

"The following (non-normative) DTD fragment illustrates a sample
declaration for the xi:include element:

"<!ELEMENT xi:include (xi:fallback?)>"

That's "non-normative" and a "sample" only.  It wouldn't be appropriate
to validate a content model that included (for whatever purpose) an
extension element.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Han [mailto:bill.han@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:46 PM
> To: Elliotte Harold
> Cc: Oleg Tkachenko; Paul Grosso; Jonathan Marsh; www-xml-xinclude-
> comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: nist-include-40 & nist-include-39
> 
> Please tell me exactly where the spec says that.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Bill
> 
> Elliotte Harold wrote:
> 
> > Bill Han wrote:
> >
> >> This has nothing to do with xi:fallback. I am talking about the
> >> content model for xi:include.
> >>
> >> <elem/> is allowed under <xi:include>? Then, how do you interpret
> >> <!ELEMENT xi:include (xi:fallback?)> ?
> >>
> >> xi:fallback is okay, b/c the spec says <!ELEMENT xi:fallback ANY>.
> >>
> >
> > The content model is irrelevant. Validity is optional. Nothing in
> the
> > XInclude spec prohibits an xi:include element from containing
> > essentially arbitrary well-formed content not in the XInclude
> > namespace. There is no error here.
> >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2005 23:12:21 UTC