- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:04:35 -0500
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 07:49 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 8 December 2010 21:07, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > > > The notation used is described in 6.2, "Formatting Object Content", > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#d0e6532 > > there is no explanation of PCDATA in 6.2 Liam? Only what substitutions > may be made. > > > > > Although DTDs are less commonly used these days, they're still very > > much part of XML of course. Do you think that it'd be clearer if we > > used some other notation for 2.0? > > I'm wondering if that is clear, or makes an assumption about > DTD understanding? > > The content models used do stand for use in relax NG, > just that they aren't complete? See my bugzilla entreis. XSL-FO 1.0 predates relax, and pretty much predates W3C XML Schema, the schema definition language of choice at W3C :-) #PCDATA is a basic part of XML syntax, and the idea that you would use XML without a DTD was still fairly new at the time -- I think it was probably expected that most readers would be familiar with DTD syntax. I'm not sure I want to see XSD syntax being used in the XSL-FO 2.0 document, as it takes up quite a lot of room, but it's for sure useful to have a formal notation. So, it's a subject for discussion within the working Group, as well as a place where public feedback would be welcome. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 03:04:39 UTC