Jerome McDonough wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Stephen Abrams wrote:
>
>> Was it intended that METS can only encapsulate valid XML as
>> <FContent>? (And I suppose the same question could be asked about
>> <mdWrap>.) If not, then I think that the processContent property for
>> the <xmlData> element should be set explicitly to "lax" so that
>> fragments containing Schema references can be validated while letting
>> fragments without Schema references get by being merely well-formed.
>
>
> There was an intention on my part to try to insure that only valid XML
> would be included,
> but in retrospect, that was probably the control-freak part of my
> personality manifesting itself
> in an unfortunate manner. How do other people feel about this? Are
> others encountering the
> same problem?
I would be inclined to use lax for encapsulated XML. There are a number
of XML dialects that lack XML Schema, the XML serialization of RDF being
a good example. Other XML dialects may be validateable but not with XML
Schema, but could be validated with Schematron, RelaxNG, or good ole DTDs.
|