Re: Issue: redefinition without the original

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

> > 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