From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-14 11:34:14
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> I don't understand what you are aiming at in your comment about the
>> 'document schema'.
> I mean that there is no way in the current API to obtain information
> about the document type, beyond its name and location.
But the DTD may not be available itself. And in fact, for XSchema, RelaxNG,
etc., there isn't even a reference to those in the document, so not even
the name is available.
(But this discussion suggests that in fact I may remove the DTD-related
accessors from the document interface and make it freestanding. It may
then evolve independently.)
>> That's an implementation detail (IMO).
> No, it's not. It's a matter of public derivation of classes and thus
> very much an interface issue.
>> Semantically, a text node and
>> a cdata node are distinct,
> Also not true, at least as far as Infoset is concerned. See also
> Appendix D of the Infoset spec, item 19.
OK, will read that.
>> and so visitors shouldn't give users access
>> to a cdata node as a text node. (And what else would the ISA relationship
>> be good for ?)
> But that's exactly what they should do (if the user wants to ignore the
> difference). CDATA, as I said before, is a serialization issue, and
> completely irrelevant to a user who just wants to know what text the
> document contains.
>> I'm sure this can be refined. (In fact, I don't think DTDs will play any
>> significant role in the future, as other document type definitions become
>> more popular, such as relaxng).
> True. Perhaps an API for generalized schema access can be devised.
Yes, but that would be a separate API, independent from my current proposal.
(Which is a good thing, as it favors modularity. Users who don't need validation
don't have to pay for it.)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk