[rfc-i] Remove some requirements on element order

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Dec 17 00:40:33 PST 2013


On 2013-12-17 09:18, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2013/12/17 6:49, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> In v2, there are a few elements that require their sub-elements to be
>> in a certain order even though that order isn't really needed by the
>> XML processor. For example,<address>  requires the
>> enclosed<postal>,<phone>,<facsimile>,<email>, and<uri>  elements be in
>> exactly that order. Given that each sub-element has its own name, the
>> order should not be important.
>
> There are several questions here:
>
>
> 1) Is this the right and only order (of how these elements should appear
> in (final) output), or do other orders make sense?

The point here is that - AFAIU - processors ignore the element order 
here anyway.

> If we get a 'yes' here, then obviously we have to make this change, but
> so far, things seem to have worked well with this fixed order.
>
>
> 2) Do we want to make it easier for the author(s), or easier for the
> tool(s)?
>
> Currently, it's the author(s) who have to put things in the right order,
> and the tools just copy things over. If we relax the order of input, but
> we want to keep the order on output, the tools will have to do more work.

As far as I can tell, the tools already extract the contents in the 
display order (that is, in the order they think it should be displayed).

> 3) Do we want to allow more than one of each of the subelements?
>
> With a DTD, allowing at most one of each is quite simple if the order is
> fixed, whereas it's a *lot* of work if the order is open.

We shouldn't constrain the design by the limitations of schema 
languages. There are nice for documentation purposes and as a *first* 
step of validation, but that's it.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list