- From: C M Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@uic.edu>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:25:53 -0500
- To: joel@spooky.emcs.cornell.edu
- CC: xml-editor@w3.org, cmsmcq@uic.edu
Thanks for your note. You wrote: >Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:05:58 -0400 >From: Joel Bender <joel@spooky.emcs.cornell.edu> > > >Section 2.1 contains the following definition of a well-formed document: > > document ::= prolog element Misc* > >Right below that mentions that matching the document production implies >that "It contains one of more elements." If this is what is intended, then >the definition should read (assuming I understand this BNF-like notation): > > document ::= prolog element+ Misc* > >Most of the examples I've seen have only one element, so I think the 2.1 >section should be changed to "...contains an element." Hmm. You're right about the potential for misunderstanding here, but I'm not sure how to fix it. The problem is that well-formed documents may indeed contain more than one element, even though the grammar is correct as written. In the following document, I count three elements: <greetings> <greeting lang='en'>Hello, world!</greeting> <greeting lang='de'>Gruüß Gott!</greeting> </greetings> So I lean toward the view that the document's current wording is less confusing than the alternative. best regards, -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Senior Research Programmer, University of Illinois at Chicago cmsmcq@uic.edu, tei@uic.edu
Received on Thursday, 22 October 1998 17:29:30 UTC