• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
• From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)
• Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:14:49 +0000 (GMT)
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <f5bk6ozcos9.fsf@e...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

In article <f5bk6ozcos9.fsf@e...> Henry Thompson write:

>Sorry not to be clearer -- in both this and your next message, the
>things you're expressing surprise/concern about are attempts to
>understand my messages as if they were about NOTATIONs and their
>declaration and use in XML 1.0/1.1 DTDs and DTD-based validation of
>instances.

>But my message was about the simple type definition of the same name
>in W3C XML Schema, which reconstructs but does _not_ interact with the
>DTD-declared attribute type.

The consequence of this difference between DTDs and Schemas seems to
be that if you want to use notations in documents and have them be
both DTD- and Schema-valid, you must ensure that the notation names
can be expressed in the instance without the use of a prefix.  If you
don't use namespaces - and thus the schema has no target namespace -
then this will happen naturally.  If you do use namespaces, you must
make the notation's namespace be the default namespace at the point
where you use the notation attribute.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
• Next by Date: Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
• Previous by thread: Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
• Next by thread: Re: Why you should avoid Notation Declarations (by
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread