[relax-ng-comment] conformance testing

[Gary Stephenson <garys@ihug.com.au>]

Hello,

In test no 81 of James' test suite, the following is asserted to be invalid

<grammar xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/0.9">
  <start>
    <element name="foo">
      <empty/>
    </element>
    <empty/>
  </start>
</grammar>

What is wrong with this?  After simplifying up to step 4.19 (before processing
<empty/>s I get:

( T_Root :
    ( T_Grammar :
        ( DEFINE - start :
            ( T_Group :
                ( REF : __sub__2 )
                ( T_Empty )
            )
        )
        ( DEFINE - __sub__2 :
            ( ELEMENT (
                ( EXPANDED-NAME : {,foo} )
                ( T_Empty )
            )
        )
    )
)

After applying step 4.20 I get:

( T_Root :
    ( T_Grammar :
        ( DEFINE - start :
            ( REF : __sub__2 )
        )
        ( DEFINE - __sub__2 :
            ( ELEMENT (
                ( EXPANDED-NAME : {,foo} )
                ( T_Empty )
            )
        )
    )
)

which seems OK to me.  I can't understand where the invalidity is supposed to
come from.

Last week I posted the following message, with no response (as yet).  If this
is because this is not the correct list for posting such messages, please let
me know, and I will cease and desist.  I am not a member of OASIS, and cannot
currently afford to join, so if this means that I am unable to get further
assistance in progressing my implementation further then so be it.

In test no 292 from James Clark's test suite we have :

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<choice xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/0.9">
  <element name="foo">
    <empty/>
  </element>
  <group>
    <notAllowed/>
    <element name="bar">
      <group>
        <data type="token"/>
        <data type="token"/>
      </group>
    </element>
  </group>
</choice>

After running this through the simplification process - but before executing
step 4.19 (process notAllowed's) I get :

( T_Root :
    ( T_Grammar :
        ( DEFINE - start :
            ( T_Choice :
                ( REF : __sub__2 )
                ( T_Group :
                    ( T_NotAllowed )
                    ( REF : __sub__3 )
                )
            )
        )
        ( DEFINE - __sub__2 :
            ( ELEMENT

                ( EXPANDED-NAME : {,foo} )
                ( T_Empty )
            )
        )
        ( DEFINE - __sub__3 :
            ( ELEMENT

                ( EXPANDED-NAME : {,bar} )
                ( T_Group :
                    ( DATA : token )
                    ( DATA : token )
                )
            )
        )
    )
)

After executing step 4.19 - i.e. removing the notAllowed's I end up with:

( T_Root :
    ( T_Grammar :
        ( DEFINE - start :
            ( REF : __sub__2 )
        )
        ( DEFINE - __sub__2 :
            ( ELEMENT

                ( EXPANDED-NAME : {,foo} )
                ( T_Empty )
            )
        )
        ( DEFINE - __sub__3 :
            ( ELEMENT

                ( EXPANDED-NAME : {,bar} )
                ( T_Group :
                    ( DATA : token )
                    ( DATA : token )
                )
            )
        )
    )
)

Note that the __sub__3 define has now been "orphaned" - there is no longer any
reference to it. When I then run content-type check (section 7.2) I get a
content-type error for that define - 'coz groupable( data(), data() ) -->
false.

So, it would appear that after running simplification steps 4.19 and 4.20,  I
need to again check for and remove any define's orphaned in the process - yes?

Also,  is my processor correct in rejecting the __sub__3 element pattern as
not having a defined content-type?

Many tias,

gary