/ John Cowan <> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
| >
| > / John Cowan <> was heard to say:
| > | No, actually I suggest
| > |
| > | <catalog>
| > | <remap type="system" source="xxx" target="yyy"/>
| > | <map source="xxx" target="yyy"/>
| > | <remap type="widget" source="xxx" target="yyy"/>
| > | </catalog>
| >
| > With a CDATA type attribute!?
|
| Yes.
I think that's *way* too loose. It seems to just invite error. I
would like to be able to validate the catalog so that users can be
informed that they've made errors (by misspelling sysetm or
something).
I'm inclined personally towards a fixed set of empty elements with
appropriate attributes. (Although it's clear that a remap element with
an enumerated list of 'type' values is isomorphic.)
The fact that we're putting our elements in a namespace means that we
can easily allow additional elements in other namespaces for extensibility
to new types.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
| The First Amendment is often inconvenient.
XML Technology Center | But that is besides the point.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Inconvenience does not absolve the
| government of its obligation to tolerate
| speech.--Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
