Re: Confirmation: the syntax of the <data> pattern.

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

> I understand that <data> pattern is defined as attached (at the moment.)
>
> Please let me know if something is wrong with it.

I think you should use xsd:NCName instead of xsd:Name.

I did param slightly differently:

            <element name="param">
              <attribute name="name">
                <data type="xsd:NCName"/>
              </attribute>
              <mixed>
                <ref name="other"/>
              </mixed>
            </element>

Your way is OK too.  I guess we should have an issue on whether <name> and
<param> allow elements from other namespaces.

Also "other" currently includes a <zeroOrMore>.

> One question:
>
>   @key and @keyref are exclusive? I can't imagine a situation where both
>   are used at the same time, but certainly it doesn't do any harm.

I guess it's easier to allow it.

> Another question:
>
>   Is there any chance that @type is introduced for <attribute>? That
>   would be just a short cut for
>
>   <attribtue><data type="..."/></attribute>
>
>   I'm not sure if I really want to have this....

I don't like this.  I think it's a slippery slope.  If we add a type to
attribute, then we'll need to add a type attribute to element; then we'll
need to add key/keyRef attributes as well; then we'll need to allow param
children.

James