I am happy to do this, if we think a spec is necessary. Perhaps just a
well-annotated pattern will do. Such could hold annotations (e.g.,
<rnga:documentaion> and <rnga:defaultValue> or some such), but it might also
hold other ancillary markup that is outside the pale of RELAX NG proper,
things that we haven't thought of yet. -Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 4:22 AM
To: ; RNG List; Murata Makoto
Subject: Re: Attribute defaults
We ought to decide as a committee whether we want to produce a
specification of a set of common annotations. (If we do, I nominate
Mike to write it!)
----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Fitzgerald <>
>To: RNG List <>; Murata
Makoto <>
>Cc:
>Subj: Re: Attribute defaults
>Reply To:
>Sent: 20 ???????? 2544 14:30
>
>Yes, this would be outside the RELAX NG spec. It would come from a
separate namespace, as James suggested.
>
>-Mike
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Murata Makoto <>
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:42:17 +0900
>
>>Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just a handful of markup for version 1.0 should prove
sufficient to satisfy
>>> some important needs.
>>
>>Such markups should be separated from the spec of RELAX NG, since
we do not
>>define any semantics for them. If some spec introduces a:default
or
>>a:defaultValue, the spec should define some subset of RELAX NG
such that
>>grammars are unambiguous.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Makoto
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single
word
>>"unsubscribe" in the body to:
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to:
>
>
>
