Re: [XBL] XBL 2.0 Expected context, Expected children

Le 06-10-12 à 07:20, Ian Hickson a écrit :
>> The sentence is better.
>> Are there unexpected contexts? Is "expected" word necessary?
>
> Well, any context that isn't expected is unexpected.

As we say in French "a snake eating its tail" or circular reasoning.

*** Source: WordNet (r) 2.0 ***
expected
      adj 1: considered likely or probable to happen or arrive;  
"prepared
             for the expected attack" [ant: {unexpected}]
      2: looked forward to as probable
      3: expected to become or be; in prospect; "potential clients";
         "expected income" [syn: {likely}, {potential}]

expected context  -> parents
expected children -> children

	"XBL 2.0 does not have a formal grammar, but individual nesting  
requirements for each elements are defined in terms of parents and  
children."


>> Do you mean because of multi namespaces? What are the precise
>> syntactical requirements which can't be expressed?
>
> Well, for instance, how do you express the syntactic requirements  
> for the
> "includes" attribute? (i.e. that it must contain a syntactically valid
> Selector?)

It is unrelated and entirely dependent on another grammar depending  
from another technology.

> Or, at the element level, how do you express the content model of the
> <template> element, which says that its descendants can include  
> <content>
> and <inherited>, that <content> elements can't be nested (even
> indirectly), but that those elements may not be somewhere that isn't a
> <template>, and that also allows a couple of XBL global attributes  
> on any
> descendant of <template> that isn't in the XBL namespace?

This one is a real issue and it maybe be not possible to express it  
with a schema
About syntactic requirements on multinamespaces it is a discussion  
which is happening right now inside XML Core. It is why the question  
is interesting. Expressing the specific constraints of XBL might be  
fruitful for this discussion.

> Or, hwo do you express the content model of the <script> element,  
> given
> that it is dependent on the script-type="" attribute on the <xbl>  
> element?

This one is unrelated and entirely dependent on another grammar  
depending from the technology used in the content.





-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 05:59:48 UTC