- From: C M Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@uic.edu>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:39:54 -0500
- To: Alain.Michard@inria.fr
- CC: xml-editor@w3.org, wilf@intravenous.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu
>X-Sender: michard@pop-rocq.inria.fr
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:03:33 +0100
>From: Alain Michard <Alain.Michard@inria.fr>
>Cc: wilf@intravenous.com
>Resent-From: xml-editor@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <xml-editor@w3.org> archive/latest/86
>X-Loop: xml-editor@w3.org
>Sender: xml-editor-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: xml-editor-request@w3.org
>Precedence: list
>
>Dear Editor,
>I may be wrong... but my understanding is that in the XML recommandation,
>production rule 51 should be written:
>
>Mixed ::= '(' S? '#PCDATA' (S? '|' S? Name)+ S? ')*'
> | '(' S? '#PCDATA' S? ')'
>
>Current production 51 (with a star instead of a plus) is ambiguous because
>its first line can mean that (#PCDATA)* is a valid mixed-content.
>The second line just says that (#PCDATA) is ALSO a valid one.
>
>My understanding is that (#PCDATA)* should not be well-formed: it does not
>make a lot a sense, is n't it?
>
>I've noted that some well known parsers reject such declaration. Should
>they accept it or should the Rec be corrected?
I believe the content model (#PCDATA)* is well-formed and should
be accepted by processors. It's no less sensible than (a+)? or
any of a number of other perfectly legal and meaningful expressions.
-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Senior Research Programmer, University of Illinois at Chicago
Editor, ACH/ACL/ALLC Text Encoding Initiative
Co-coordinator, Model Editions Partnership
cmsmcq@uic.edu, tei@uic.edu
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 1998 19:41:31 UTC