Thanks. I overlooked Appendix A and it looks like it works OK, despite being
a future work.
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" />
> <ElementDef Type="B" Model="Data"
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)*>
2) <!ELEMENT A (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT B (A)>
<!ELEMENT C (A)>
<!ELEMENT D (B, C)>