> If we allow embedding of RNG schema fragments in
> annotations, we certainly want to use the same syntax for such embedded
> fragments.
We do allow embedding of elements and attributes from the RNG namespace in
annotations. However, such elements and attributes do not have to conform
to the RELAX NG schema or satisfy any other constraints. There is no
defined semantics for such elements and attributes.
Round-tripping (compact -> xml -> compact) while preserving special syntax
for RNG elements embedded in annotations would be tricky: you would have to
figure out the maximal subtree that corresponded to a syntactically legal
pattern (or name class?) and then use compact syntax for such subtrees,
recursively handling annotations inside such subtrees.
I think this would add significant complexity to an implementation and more
importantly to the specification, without providing much practical benefit.
James
