James Clark scripsit:
> I think the rationale is that this is a DTD Compatibility spec; the
> justification for including a:documentation in the spec is that
> a:documentation corresponds to a comment in a DTD and comments in a DTD
> contain mere sequences of Unicode characters.
I accept this argument.
> There's certainly scope for a future spec to standardize a richer
> documentation facility. However, I don't think it's as simple as saying
> the a:documentation element can contain arbitrary sublements. That doesn't
> seem sufficient to me from an interoperability. Imagine writing a GUI for
> editing RELAX NG schemas: how is it going to be able to display the
> comments in a useful way unless it knows what the subelements mean? Maybe
> a subset of XHTML is the way to go for a future spec.
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/ibtwsh.dtd
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan
