Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Jirka Kosek wrote:

> Tobias Reif wrote:
> 
>> It will satisfy most of the requirements, yes.
>> (Note that Norm lists one shortcoming:
>> http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
>> "A future version of RELAX NG might give us back our exclusions.")
> 
> This is not shortcoming,


Obviously, a mechanism for exclusions is not a shortcoming, and I didn't 
say it would be. The lack of exclusions in current versions of Relax 
seems to be a shortcoming, no?

> but profit.


> Exclusions are quite useful 


Yes, that's why Norm wants to see this mechanism in futire versions of 
Relax, AFAICS.


> mechanism known from SGML DTDs but missing in XML ones. Exclusions allow 
> you to remove some elements from content model without needing to change 
> this content. This is useful for complex DTDs where you have content 
> models stored in parametric entities.


I think you misunderstood me again, as so many times before.

If I understood Norm correctly, the lack of (a mechanism supporting) 
exclusions in the current version of Relax is a limitation, especially 
regarding his requirements.


Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/