[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Comments on the specification
James Clark wrote: > > - Isn't the type attribute optional for <value>? > > Yes. There's a "?" following the attribute value that is intended to > indicate this. Is there some way I should fix the notation to make this > clearer? Sorry, I looked over the "?". I prefer "[" and "]" probably in a big font. James Clark wrote: > > We certainly do not remove xml:base. > > I believe we do remove it. xml:base is used in determining the value of the > [base URI] property of an element info item, which is in turn used to > construct the base URI of the context of an element. Once you have > constructed an instance of the data model, xml:base can be thrown away. I get it. > Maybe we need something emphasizing that these transformations are applied > at the data model level, and that the parsing and infoset construction takes > places before the transformation rules are applied. Maybe a note in 4.1 too? Such a para and a note would be very helpful. James Clark wrote: > As I've written the spec, > datatypeLibrary would apply to bar.rng, but that wan't intentional and I'm > not sure that's a good idea. A good point. Chameleons for namespaces make sense. But do hameleons for datatype libraries make sense? Cheers, Makoto
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC