- 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