Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Chris Maden wrote: > The biggest problem with DTDs (IMO) is that they conflate definitions > for a class of documents with definitions for a single document > instance. A schema should try, as cleanly as possible, to refer only > to the *class* of documents, and leave entities out of it. After > XSchema is successful, then we can move on to tackle a new and better > syntax for entity declaration. I concede that many, perhaps most, general entities are document specific, but not all. Consider the MIXED element from the my early drafts of XSchema itself. The form <MIXED> <REF .../> <REF .../> ... </MIXED> declared #PCDATA-and-element content, whereas "<MIXED/>" declared #PCDATA-only content as a degenerate case. The DTD could have declared (though actually it didn't) <!ENTITY PCDATA "<MIXED/>"> to allow people to write "&PCDATA;" in XSchemas as a better-documented version of "<MIXED/>". Surely this entity would be worthy of declaration in the XSchema XSchema? > Now, it may be that the "Entity" element is only intended for use > within the schema. If so, great, but I think the name should reflect > that. Maybe call it "module"? No, not at all. There is no XSchema equivalent of parameter entities. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@c... You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) 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...)
|
