> Toby Speight wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I see your point. I think what I dislked about Ron's proposal
> > is the unconstrained #PCDATA here:
> >
> > Ron> <!ELEMENT NotationValue (#PCDATA)>
> > Ron> <!ELEMENT EnumerationValue (#PCDATA)>
> >
> > I think that the list-of-elements structure can be retained, but with
> > tighter constraints by writing
> >
> > > <!ELEMENT NotationValue EMPTY>
> > > <!ATTLIST NotationValue Value NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
> > > <!ELEMENT EnumerationValue EMPTY>
> > > <!ATTLIST EnumerationValue Value NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
>
> That's what my draft does wrt enumerations. I have more problems
> with notations, because it doesn't make sense to me to have to
> redeclare every notation name with every notation attribute,
> since any notation attribute can refer to any notation name.
> Thus I treat notation attributes like other attributes with
> predefined types.
I'm not sure what you mean by redeclaring every notation name with every
attribute. In the above structure, the notation value is simply a NMTOKEN. Why
would I need to redeclare notation names? Are you thinking that the
NotationValue attribute is an enumerated (not NMTOKEN) attribute?
-- Ron Bourret