#PCDATA "element": Yes!

[Stefan Haustein]

Nils Klarlund wrote:
> 
> An alternative approach would have declared "content" to simply
> consist of just element nodes and text nodes ("text nodes" as in
> XPATH) representing character data.  Then there would be no need for
> (2), since a content model now describes a regular language over the
> alphabet consisting of what you would expect: element names and the
> token text() (or #PCDATA).  And, you'd be able to describe, say, HTML
> with Appendix elements that must appear at the end:
> 
>   ((#PCDATA | H1 | H2 |...)*, Appendix*)
> 
> So, the distinction between element content and mixed content is a
> needless one that both restricts what can be expressed and that
> muddles the conceptual framework.  (The way of treating content just
> outlined is what we chose for the DSD schema notation, incidentally.)

I was already wondering why this was not done in the current XML 
schema definition: In my opinion, the whole concept of a "content 
model" could be removed, removing some possibilities for 
inconsistencies: Implementing XML schema, you are always wondering 
about things like "what, if the given content type 'empty', and an
explicit <type> is given. Does the given type override the content 
specification? Do I trow an error? But maybe the given type 
is empty, too, so I need to check for consistency.....  

Best regards

Stefan

-- 
Stefan Haustein
University of Dortmund
Computer Science VIII
www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de

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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at ic.ac.uk the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email at your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.