> - the name of the meta-DTD entity (REQUIRED for validation)
XML could work around this problem by specifying that the meta-DTD
entity have the same name as the notation (and as the base
architecture itself).
> - whether or not to automatically map element types to element forms
> of the same name (default: perform automatic mapping)
This is an important one -- I rarely use the default value here,
because automatic mapping will often cause conflicts with small
architectures embedded in complex document types.
> I would very much like to be able to use the SGML architecture
> mechanism with XML, but XML's lack of data attributes makes it
> impossible to do so, except in the simplest of cases. (And even in
> those cases we cannot prove architectural validity for lack of a
> meta-DTD entity name.)
No following the scheme in annex 1, but we could provide validation
using the convention I mentioned above.
> Either we need data attributes in XML, or a different architecture
> binding mechanism needs to be devised. My personal opinion is that
> the former would be easier, and more generally useful, but I have
> to admit to a tendency to the more general and therefore less
> easily implementable.
It would not be hard to implement data-attribute support in XML, but
the committee might not be thrilled with the idea -- it will probably
seem too much like creeping featurism. I imagine that they will
probably end up using processing instructions instead of data
attributes. I agree with Peter in preferring data attributes.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
University of Ottawa dmeggins@uottawa.ca
http://www.uottawa.ca/~dmeggins