Cédric Krier schrieb:

>> * For newline the attribute id is optional. Most <newline> tags in
>> the .xmls do not have an id attribute, so this matches the
>> implementation. But for all other elements, id is required (or not
>> allowed).
> 
> That is correct. I don't think it is required to have id on newline
> at least we have not yet need it.

Okay.

>> * For board, graph and tree, <data> is defined as element data {
>> data.attlist, xpath+ }  # at least one xpath whereas for form,
>> <data> is defined as element data { data.attlist, xpath* }  # could
>> be empty Is this meant this way?
> 
> It could be empty for all.

Okay. I'll change all to "optional".

>> * IMHO this <data> element could be removed at all, since it only
>> ever contains xpath.
> 
> Except that XML requires a unique tag at root.

This one I missed ;-)

>> * According tho the current relaxng schema, in this construct:: 
>> <form> ... <graph> <x> <field> the <field> could be a field as
>> defined in form.rnc. I wonder whether this is correct or this sould
>> only allow fileds as defined in graph.rnc?
> 
> It is correct. All attributes from form are not used in graph.

Pardon? Do you mean: Only those attributes defined in graph.rnc are
allowed for fields in the above construct? Or do you mean: In addition
to the attributes defined in graph.rnc, other attributes are allowed,
but not all?

-- 
Schönen Gruß - Regards
Hartmut Goebel
Dipl.-Informatiker (univ.), CISSP, CSSLP

Goebel Consult
Spezialist für IT-Sicherheit in komplexen Umgebungen
http://www.goebel-consult.de

Monatliche Kolumne: http://www.cissp-gefluester.de/
Goebel Consult mit Mitglied bei http://www.7-it.de

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to