Re: Issue: shall we restrict subordinates of <oneOrMore>

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

This disallows:

<zeroOrMore>
  <choice>
     <element>
       <anyName/>
     </element>
     <attribute>
       <anyName/>
     </attribute>
   </choice>
</zeroOrMore>

which is useful and harmless since equivalent to:

<group>
   <zeroOrMore>
     <element>
       <anyName/>
     </element>
   </zeroOrMore>
   <zeroOrMore>
     <attribute>
       <anyName/>
     </attribute>
   </choice>
</zeroOrMore>

I would propose instead the following restriction (also in terms of the
normalized form):

If a <oneOrMore> element has an <attribute> descendant, it must not have a
<group> or <interleave> descendant.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Murata Makoto" <mura034@attglobal.net>
To: "TREX Discussion List" <trex@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: Issue: shall we restrict subordinates of <oneOrMore>


> I believe that we have to restrict <oneOrMore> patterns.  If we
> allow an <oneOrMore> element to contain both <attribute> and <ref>,
> I do not think that we can test the equivalence and subset relationship
> of patterns [1].  Furthemore, descriptive power of such patterns is beyond
> the class of regular languages, and (in my opinion) excessive.
>
> I would propose restrictions as below:
>
> After normalization by JamesC [2] , the subordinate of a <oneOrMore>
element
> takes one of the three forms as below:
>
> 1) a pattern not containing <attribute> directly or indirectly.
>
> 2) an <attribute> element.
>
> 3) a <choice> element containing <attribute> elements or
>    <choice> elements of the form 3) only.
>
> [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/trex/200105/msg00015.html
>
> [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/trex/200104/msg00046.html
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Makoto
>
>
>