Re: [relax-ng-comment] conformance test

[Gary Stephenson <garys@ihug.com.au>]

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>
>