[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
Jirka Kosek wrote: > Tobias Reif wrote: > >> It will satisfy most of the requirements, yes. >> (Note that Norm lists one shortcoming: >> http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook >> "A future version of RELAX NG might give us back our exclusions.") > > This is not shortcoming, Obviously, a mechanism for exclusions is not a shortcoming, and I didn't say it would be. The lack of exclusions in current versions of Relax seems to be a shortcoming, no? > but profit. > Exclusions are quite useful Yes, that's why Norm wants to see this mechanism in futire versions of Relax, AFAICS. > mechanism known from SGML DTDs but missing in XML ones. Exclusions allow > you to remove some elements from content model without needing to change > this content. This is useful for complex DTDs where you have content > models stored in parametric entities. I think you misunderstood me again, as so many times before. If I understood Norm correctly, the lack of (a mechanism supporting) exclusions in the current version of Relax is a limitation, especially regarding his requirements. Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]