Compound Documents - necessary for success?

[james anderson]

Ronald Bourret wrote:
> ...
> 
> 2) When we wrote the new DTD, a *human* made the decision about where
> <Height> was legal.  Anybody figuring out a foolproof way for a machine to
> do this usefully -- that is, without defining the content model of all
> elements as ANY -- will probably get a Turing Award for AI.
> 

hmm, I've not been following this discussion, but, if one were to first treat
the model as ANY - in order to be able to represent the domain, and then to
examine the asserted elements, couldn't this be modeled as a straight-forward
learning problem?

> ...
> I personally think that anything more utopian than this is going to
> require, at the very least, a new definition of validity.  One such
> definition was that proposed in this thread: that each subdocument is
> validated under its own DTD and the overall document is not validated but
> merely checked for well-formedness.

Which would require nothing more complicated in the encoding than an attribute
to enable/disable validation on an element basis:
 validation="none"
 validation="content attributes", "content", "attributes"
 validation="element"


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)