Compound Documents - necessary for success?
James.Anderson at mecomnet.de
Mon Feb 1 17:55:01 GMT 1999
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
> 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="content attributes", "content", "attributes"
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev