Re: [xml] Is this legal?

[Gary Pennington <Gary Pennington uk sun com>]

David Frascone wrote:

> Are ID/IDREF pairs supposed to be document wide, ignoring the attribute name?

If this means "does an ID have global scope in a document?", then the answer is
yes.

> Given the following DTD fragment:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!ELEMENT typedefn EMPTY>
> <!ATTLIST typedefn
>         type-name ID #REQUIRED
>         description CDATA #IMPLIED
> >
>
> <!ELEMENT avp ((type | grouped), (enum*) )>
> <!ATTLIST avp
>         name ID #REQUIRED
>         description CDATA #IMPLIED
>         code CDATA #REQUIRED
>         may-encrypt (true | false) "true"
>         mandatory-flag (disallowed | allowed | required) "allowed"
>         vendor-specific (true | false) "false"
>         vendor-id IDREF #IMPLIED
>         constrained (true | false) "false"
> >
>
> Should this XML fragment be legal?  (xmllint --valid thinks so)
>
>         <typedefn type-name"someType" />

Small typo correction ->        <typedefn type-name="someType" />


>         <avp name="ARAP-Features" code="71">
>                 <type type-name="OctetString"/>
>         </avp>
>
>         <avp name="Good-AVP" code="1">
>                 <type type-name="someType"/>
>         </avp>
>
>         <avp name="Bad-AVP" code="2">
>                 <type type-name="ARAP-Features"/>
>         </avp>
>
> </dictionary>

It looks valid to me. Your DTD fragment identifies two IDs type-name on
<typedefn> and name on <avp>. There are no clashes between these attributes that
I can see, so I think it's valid.

Gary

> _______________________________________________
> xml mailing list
> xml gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml