• From: Paul Prescod <papresco@t...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:05:14 -0400

Peter Newcomb wrote:
> As far as I know, it's not possible to have an architectural element
> without a client (source) element.

Okay, I interpreted something Eliot said to mean that given an
architectural DTD like this:

<!-- superclass elements -->
<!ELEMENT OUTER O O (INTRODUCED1)>
<!ELEMENT INTRODUCED1 O O (INNER)>
<!ELEMENT INNER O O (#PCDATA)>

The existence of OUTER and INNER architectural elements could force the
existence of an INTRODUCED1 architectural element as if those elements
were directly parsed. The idea seemed bizarre at the time so I should be
happy it isn't there. It seemed as if it would be useful for "wrapping"
one element in another. Architectural forms make more sense as an
application-level inheritance mechanism without it.
 
 Paul Prescod



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: AFs and the DPH
    • From: Peter Newcomb <peter@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML-Data: advantages over DTD syntax? (and some wishes)
• Next by Date: Inheritance/defaulting of attributes
• Previous by thread: Re: AFs and the DPH
• Next by thread: Re: AFs and the DPH
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread