[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [relax-ng-comment] conformance test
You're right again: the prohibited path should be attribute//ref. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Stephenson" <garys@ihug.com.au> To: <relax-ng-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:55 AM 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