Oleg,
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> P.S. I believe full-fledged fo schema would be a very useful thing.
Would you mind if I contribute to this project?
You just did contribute. Thanks. I'll include your change (and any
others anyone sends me) in the next draft. I'll post it next week to
give other people time to respond.
I've got nothing in my own FO documents that even come close to
exercising the full spec. If we want to develop a full-fledged and
validated schema, I'll need contributions from people who have a real
need to validate complex documents.
Chuck
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Chuck Paussa wrote:
> I've improved the FO schema adding much better type patterns and
adding a bunch of attributes that I'd missed the first time around.
>
> Well done! I tried to validate my fo documents and the first
validation error I got was about content - I have some
meta info there in my namespace. Spec says:
> ---
> Contents:
> (color-profile)+
>
> The fo:declarations flow object may have additional child elements in
a non-XSL namespace. Their presence
> does not, however, change the semantics of the XSL namespace objects
and properties. The permitted
> structure of these non-XSL namespace elements is defined for their
namespace(s).
>
>
> So, I suppose, schema declaration for the element should be as follows:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> btw, this declaration assumes that all elements
must come before other stuff, which is not required by spec, but I
cannot see any way to express such constraints in schema, one could use
instead of , but this way we lose control over
(color-profile)+ constraint.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
