Re: [xml] Is this legal?

[David Frascone <dave frascone com>]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:29:23PM +0100, Gary Pennington wrote:
> 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.

Even though the type-name, "ARAP-Features" is refering to an avp name
attribute?

I had "assumed" that the attribute names were matched up.  Looks like I was
wrong.


-Dave