Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John Cowan wrote: > Toby Speight wrote: > > > Hmm. I see your point. I think what I dislked about Ron's proposal > > is the unconstrained #PCDATA here: > > > > Ron> <!ELEMENT NotationValue (#PCDATA)> > > Ron> <!ELEMENT EnumerationValue (#PCDATA)> > > > > I think that the list-of-elements structure can be retained, but with > > tighter constraints by writing > > > > > <!ELEMENT NotationValue EMPTY> > > > <!ATTLIST NotationValue Value NMTOKEN #REQUIRED> > > > <!ELEMENT EnumerationValue EMPTY> > > > <!ATTLIST EnumerationValue Value NMTOKEN #REQUIRED> > > That's what my draft does wrt enumerations. I have more problems > with notations, because it doesn't make sense to me to have to > redeclare every notation name with every notation attribute, > since any notation attribute can refer to any notation name. > Thus I treat notation attributes like other attributes with > predefined types. I'm not sure what you mean by redeclaring every notation name with every attribute. In the above structure, the notation value is simply a NMTOKEN. Why would I need to redeclare notation names? Are you thinking that the NotationValue attribute is an enumerated (not NMTOKEN) attribute? -- Ron Bourret 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...)
|
