Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rick Jelliffe writes:
> A schema that would be useful for document construction should
> include human-readable comments, the ability of one attribute to
> enable another, specifying the end types of reference, etc.
> Newbies ask predictable questions about structures; the draft has
> not addressed those questions.
Rick makes a very good point -- the schema requirements for authoring
and validation/processing are very different. Additional complexity
comes from the fact that there is also an n:n relationship also
between authoring and processing schemas: a document created using any
given authoring schema may match n validation schemas, and vice-versa.
The main point, I think, is that it would be a mistake to try to force
any kind of 1:1 relationship onto XML documents and their
schemas/stylesheets, etc. by using the Namespace URI to locate a
single, canonical schema.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@m...
http://www.megginson.com/
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)
|
