- From: <MarkH@i2.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:28:59 -0000
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Has anyone else noticed how much more readable DTDs look all of a sudden?
And, is this heracy?
:-)
Mark
--
Agile HTML Editor
Agilic Corporation
http://www.agilic.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [SMTP:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:17 PM
> To: David E. Cleary
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Is this valid?
>
> "David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com> writes:
>
> > This is using the April 7 syntax:
> >
> > <element name = "XMI.difference">
> > <complexType content = "elementOnly">
> > <choice minOccurs = "0" maxOccurs = "unbounded">
> > <element ref = "XMI.difference"/>
> > <element ref = "XMI.delete"/>
> > <element ref = "XMI.add"/>
> > <element ref = "XMI.replace"/>
> > </choice>
> > <attributeGroup ref = "XMI.element.att"/>
> > <attributeGroup ref = "XMI.link.att"/>
> > </complexType>
> > </element>
> >
> > This definition was created by XML Authority by converting a DTD. It has
> an
> > element declaration that includes a reference to itself. This causes our
> > tool to loop until it blows up. The April 7 XSV doesn't complain. Is it
> > legal to do this?
>
> It's fine. It reconstructs
>
> <!ELEMENT x (x|y|z)>
>
> which it would be very odd to rule out, to say nothing of violating
> our Requirements document.
>
> ht
> --
> Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of
> Edinburgh
> W3C Fellow 1999--2001, 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/
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 07:34:42 UTC