[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [relax-ng-comment] conformance test
Hi all, Obviously, the same problem applies to many of the other restricitons also. Perhaps the definition of "descendant" in section 7.1. should be expanded to explicitly state that the descendants of a ref element are in fact the descendants of the corresponding define element. I assume that is the intent - yes? cheers, gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Stephenson" <garys@ihug.com.au> To: <relax-ng-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [relax-ng-comment] conformance test > Hi James, > > > I think this comment identifies a bug in the spec. Section 4.20 (the section > > on notAllowed) should say that any definitions that are made unreachable by > > the simplification of notAllowed are removed. > > Great. On a somewhat similar note, in Section 7.1.1 it says: > "The following paths are prohibited: > > a.. attribute//element > b.. attribute//attribute" > But after simplification, should not the element have been tranformed to a > ref? - due to Section 4.18, whereby > > "the grammar is transformed so that every element element is the child of a > define element" > > So should the prohibited path be changed to: > > attribute//ref > > or similar? > > cheers, > > gary > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC