Internal subset equivalent in new schema proposals?

[James Robertson]

At 18:48 2/12/1998 , you wrote:

  | Joel Bender <joel at spooky.emcs.cornell.edu> writes:
  | 
  | > I was thinking along similar lines.  I've been adding something like this
  | > to my XML documents:
  | 
  | > 	<prop name="state" xml:regexp="[A-Z]+">NY</prop>
  | 
  | It's a neat way of doing it, since checking is optional and
  | transparent to non-checking applications.

Wouldn't this be better placed in a DTD?

By adding a fixed, pre-set attribute with the regexp to
element definitions in the DTD, you can enforce consistency.

Otherwise, can't the user just choose to use this or not,
on an individual, ad-hoc basis?

If so, what are we enforcing?

All that being said, I am of the belief that all of
this should be placed in application code. XML isn't
a solution to any problem, it is a storage and interchange 
format for applications ...

Why try to cram the entire world of computing 
science into XML?

Cheers,

James


-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr at steptwo.com.au

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)