• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:09:47 +1000

From: Tyler Baker <tyler@i...>


> Any thoughts here?


It would be better if they just said somewhere "the namespace PI has the 
same syntax as XML element start-tags" and then given the following 
pseudo-declaration:

<!ATTLIST #PI xml:namespace
    prefix   NMTOKEN #REQUIRED
    ns        CDATA       #REQUIRED
    src       CDATA       #IMPLIED     >
<!-- NOTES:
    prefix is an XML NAME, but cannot contain ":".
    ns      is a URI.
    src     is a URI. 
-->

The production they probably want is probably more like

[1] <?xml:namespace'  S 
                (NSDef S PrefixDef | PrefixDef S NSDef)  
                (S (SrcDef S? )? )?
     '?>'

This is a case where, to me, the markup declararation syntax
has clear advantages over BNF.  And I dread to think what it
would look like in some version of XML-data element syntax.

Rick Jelliffe


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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Confusion with Namespaces?
• Next by Date: Re: AElfred SAX driver ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Confusion with Namespaces?
• Next by thread: Re: SAX: Method Name Collisions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread