> A default root might fly. Certainly a mandatory root is wrong.
>
> In many ways, the XSchema PI is like DOCTYPE -- it points to a document
> containing the structure of your document. As Simon suggested, it should
> therefore have a way to specify the root element, similar to the doc-type in the
> DOCTYPE declaration.
I agree.
> Unfortunately, these raises conflicts between DOCTYPE and the XSchema PI, since
> they are two different ways to do the same thing.
I think this is just a special case of XSchema PI vs !DOCTYPE conflict
in general. After all, a document might insist that it conforms
to a.dtd and b.xschema.xml, where a is not in any way transformable
to b. With a well-chosen document and a and b, the document might
even pass validation.
> I don't like telling people they can use DOCTYPE or XSchema PIs but not both. I
> also don't like having to write a long list of conflict resolutions -- it just
> makes XSchemas harder to use. In both cases, it feels like we are imposing
> requirements not in the XML spec. Ideas?
I say, give the users plenty of rope, and if they hang themselves,
they hang themselves. However, I would say that a document conforms
to an XSchema if its actual root is an element defined in the XSchema,
even if the XSchema-PI doesn't declare any root.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)