"Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com> writes: > Despite the fact that multiple non-normative portions of the spec make > it clear that ambiguous content-models were not intended to be allowed, I contest this -- _my_ motivation was what the constraint is named -- unique attribution. Having said that, your example is thought-provoking. I note however that <!ELEMENT f ((a+,b?)*)> is valid XML. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 04:31:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:30 GMT