LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for XML-L Archives

XML-L Archives

XML-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave XML-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: DCD Current (& Future) Submission
From: Jon Wynacht <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:General discussion of Extensible Markup Language <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:25:17 -0800

text/plain (43 lines)

Thanks. I overlooked Appendix A and it looks like it works OK, despite being
a future work.


-----Original Message-----
From: General discussion of Extensible Markup Language
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ronald Bourret
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 2:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DCD Current (& Future) Submission

Jon Wynacht wrote:

> Will this be possible?
> <ElementDef Type="A" Model="Elements" Content="Closed">
>         <Description>The A Element</Description>
>         <AttributeDef name="Source_type" />
>         <Group>
>                 <ElementDef Type="B" Model="Data"
>         </Group>
> </ElementDef>

See Appendix A: Local Element Definitions.  Unfortunately, it's probably
not what you want, as the element only occurs within the context of another
element.  (It's also future work, not part of the current DCD spec.)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a handy tree structure styling", but
it makes me wonder if you want to be able to declare your elements in tree
form, where each definition fits neatly inside its parent element. In
general, this won't work, as DTDs are graphs, not trees.  For example, how
would you declare either of the following in a tree?

1) <!ELEMENT A (#PCDATA | B)*>
   <!ELEMENT B (#PCDATA | A)*>

   <!ELEMENT B (A)>
   <!ELEMENT C (A)>
   <!ELEMENT D (B, C)>

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main XML-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager