[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Issue: redefinition without the original
> > I don't think the proposal addressed this issue. > > > > Your example seems to be mixing two different issues. Consider just: > > > > A.rng > > <grammar> > > <include href="B.rng"> > > <define name="foo"> ... </define> > > </include> > > </grammar> > > > > B.rng > > <grammar/> > > > > If the user has done this, then they have probably made a mistake. On the > > other hand the semantics are clear. We can either make this an error or > > suggest that implementations give a warning. Please open an issue on this > > one. > > The following example might be more complex: > > A.rng: > <grammar> > <include href="B.rng"/> > <include href="C.rng"> > <define name="foo"> .... </define> > </include> > </grammar> > > B.rng: > <grammar> > <define name="foo"> ... </define> > </grammar> > > C.rng: > <grammar/> I don't follow you here. The <define> inside the include only replaces the definitions in C.rng, not the definitions in B.rng, so your example is equivalent to: <grammar> <include href="B.rng"/> <define name="foo">...</define> </grammar> which is an error since B.rng also has a definition of "foo" and neither have a combine attribute. James
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC