[dsdl-discuss] Re: Semantic framework for namespace processing and MNS2

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> I wonder if it would be nice if modes had explicit declarations, which then
> would provide place for syntactic sugar like "open" or "closed",

I think this is a good argument for a mode element.

> since
>
> <anyNamespace>
> <pass/>
> </anyNamespace>
> and
>
> <anyNamespace inModes="keep">
> <pass useMode="keep"/>
> </anyNamespace>
> and
>
> <anyNamespace inModes="discard">
> <delve useMode="discard"/>
> </anyNamespace>
>
> might be common idioms.

I think they will be too.

> Also, do people have examples where inModes has multiple modes? If it is
> not common, then mode could be an element that encapsulates namespace
>
> rules
> mode
> namespace
> validate

I don't have a concrete example, but the general case is where you have
two modes which are similar but non-identical. But we could handle this
case with a mode element rather than an inModes attribute like this:

<mode name="common">
rules common to X and Y
</mode>

<mode name="X" extends="common">
rules specific to X
</mode>

<mode name="Y" extends="common">
rules specific to Y
</mode>

James

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)