RE: VOTable Questions

> <!-- VOTABLE is the root element -->
> <!ELEMENT VOTABLE (DESCRIPTION?, DEFINITIONS?, INFO*, RESOURCE*)>
> <!ATTLIST VOTABLE
> ID ID #IMPLIED
> version CDATA #IMPLIED
>
> To remove the order dependence, the DTD would need to be changed to
> something like this:
>
> <!ELEMENT VOTABLE ((DESCRIPTION?, DEFINITIONS?, INFO*, RESOURCE*)*)>

Yup.  

> Note the extra parens, and the '*' on the end. But this raises the
> possibility of multiple DESCRIPTION elements, which are not explicitly
> forbidden by this template, but which are prevented by the original
> template. There is probably a better way to write the template than shown
> above, but the point remains that VOTABLE is by definition order-specific
> for now.

Yup. Follow that, not sure I entirely agree that the order-specifc(ness) of the format is strictly necessary, or "good". But I guess its entirely argueable... and as I mentioned before, while I do a good imitation, I'm not actually an XML purist. For that you really need to talk to Norman Gray.... ;)

> Perhaps "horrifying" is too strong a term (even if Halloween is fast
> approaching here in the US), but the order dependence cannot be avoided in
> the current version of the spec.

Perhaps a bit of culture clash? I was being rather British... ;)

Al.

-- 
Dr. A. Allan, School of Physics, University of Exeter