Re: XSchema Question 5: Root element issues

Alain DESEINE (alain@cabinfo.com)
Wed, 03 Jun 1998 09:14:09 +0200

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> We'll start the XSchema document syntax discussion at the top, with the root
> element. Hopefully this piece will be a nice appetizer and we can proceed to
> its subelements and attributes, the main course.
>
> >From the Goals:
> --------------------
> 1. XSchema documents shall use XML document syntax, using element nesting and
> attributes to describe all constraints that may be verified by a processor
> using XSchema.
> --------------------
>
> In XML documents, per 2.1 of the XML specification:
> --------------------
> There is exactly one element, called the root, or document element, no part of
> which appears in the content of any other element.
> --------------------
>
> XSchema documents, in order to be XML documents, must have a single root
> element, which may be preceded by the prolog, PIs, and perhaps comments and
> XML 1.0 DTD information.
>
> An XSchema document might begin:
> <?xml version='1.0' ?>
> <?xml:namespace ns='http://tobedetermined.com' prefix='XSC' ?>
> <XSC:XSchema>
> ...
> </XSC:XSchema>
>
> Do we want to provide additional information in this root element regarding
> XSchema version, for instance?
>
> We could add "version='0.1'" or something.
>
> Given that we're discussing verifying fragments, it's mildly ironic to be
> requiring a root element. Any concerns on that issue?
>
> Most important, am I forgetting anything critical?
>
> Simon St.Laurent
> Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies
>

I aggree with

<XSC:XSchema>
...
</XSC:XSchema>

About versionning (I mean version of the document instance, of course)
information (and perharps some other informations), i think we have two
ways :

- Including it as you propose as an attribute of the root element like

<XSC:XSchema version="1.0">
...
</XSC:XSchema>

or,

- adding a new element like this :

<XSC:XSchema>
<XSC:Version>1.0</XSC:Version>
...
</XSC:XSchema>

I prefer the first solution, but i can agree with the second one too.

Alain.