[Ahem.]
[Ron Bourret]
> > > [2] XSchemaID ::= 'xschema' Eq SystemLiteral
[John Cowan]
> > Some provision needs to be made for a PubIdLiteral as well.
[Ron Bourret]
> I wondered about this. I'll change the xschema in [2] to SYSTEM and
> add a production for PUBLIC. Two questions:
>
> 1) Are there any conventions in PIs for use/no use of equals signs?
Not formally, but the trend (in the XML declaration, the old PI-based
namespace proposal, and the experimental stylesheet PI) is towards
attribute-like syntax. It makes processing a bit easier; your
expression language can retrieve information about a PI in the same
way it retrieves information about attributes.
> 2) Do we always require a system identifier or are the choices
> system / public / both?
That's really a goals question. If the initial cut at XSchema is to
have the same (or a slight superset of) functionality of a DTD, then a
system identifier must be required. If schemas are intended to go
beyond DTDs, then consideration should be given to not requiring
system IDs. But I suspect the discussion will end up following the
same track that the XML WG/SIG took: there is no widespread mechanism
yet for resolving FPIs, and so a document will be less portable with
no system ID. But that is a long and tiring debate, and it may be
better, for now, to adopt the decision of the XML WG and require
system IDs.
-Chris
-- <!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN"> <!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN" "<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487 <USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>