/ Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | On Feb 3, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Norman Walsh wrote: | |> There are some constraints that the RELAX NG grammar can't practically |> enforce. Should it enforce the MUSTs of the specification or the SHOULDs? |> For example, should it allow non-XHTML elements inside a Content |> Construct with the type 'XHTML'? | | Ideally we'd like two versions, or maybe some Schematron trickery so | we get told about SHOULDs but it doesn't actually fail?
Ok, I'll plan to spend some more time thinking about the Schematron
expressions (and writing some of the hairier ones) after the spec is
really bolted down.
| As for the XHTML thing, I think this is going to happen all the time (foreign
| markup in embedded XHTML) and I don't think we should try to get in the way.
| However, I just now tried to think of some spec language to express this and
| came up empty. -Tim
I think the spec language is fine
If the value of "type" is "XHTML", the content of the Text construct
MAY contain child elements. The content SHOULD be XHTML text and
markup that could validly appear directly within an xhtml:div
element.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Old age is the most unexpected of all
http://nwalsh.com/ | the things that happen to a man.--
| Trotsky
pgpc0wRIQVzgP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
