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
