At 00:43 06/09/18, Frank Ellermann wrote: >Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> May be we should use the same vocabulary as the RFC 4646. For >> instance, you use "date" when the RFC uses (except for the >> <ltru> element) "added". > >Yes, I wanted the same attribute name for all dates. With a >DTD some ABNF details are lost, I've used the name for a hint >about the real type (NMTOKEN isn't very precise for dates ;-) That's not the way XML is supposed to work. The names are supposed to say what something is, not to indicate the type. In a DTD, additional type information should go into comments. If you want to express/check these, use XML Schema or Relax or Schematron or a script. >> Or you use "tag" when the RFC uses subtag or tag, > >Same idea. In the version supporting ID-XREF-checks I could >keep "subtag" as is, and use "tag" only as attribute for the >grandfathered, redundant, prefix, and deprecated elements. > >> I do not see Preferred-value in your schema? > >It's the optional (#IMPLIED) "tag" in a <deprecated> element. If it's the preferred value, call it that. The idea of XML is that people understand as much as possible from the data and markup itself. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.