>>>Pete Johnston said:
<snip/>
> If this is not the correct model for Simple DC and/or the schema is
> intended as a more general basis for application profiles, then I think
> a broader base type is certainly required, as you suggest.
I thought that was the whole point - to enable the use of potentially
more complex schema validation. If not, why not just stick to DTDs?
I'd hope that this would enable, those who wanted to, to check the
values of the DC elements from controlled vocabularies, "encoding schemes"
etc.
Dave
|