Re: Reopening Issue 26: regularityConstraint

[Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com>]

> Meanwhile, <oneOrMore> also plays two roles.  But they are *not*
> orthogonal; if we do not impose any restrictions, we deviate from the
> realm of the tree regular language.
> 
> We have introduced restrictions.  Having clarified the semantics 
> of <oneOrMore>, I think that this construct now plays two non-orthogonal 
> roles and that it is much more appropriate to have two constructs 
> (which may have the same tag name).

The current restriction is already restrictive enough to make RELAX NG a
tree regular language.

So what is the advantage of your proposal?  Is it just the simpler BNF?




regards,
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI                          +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems                   kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com