[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: <notAllowed/> as a name class
I think it's good that users cannot right a name-class equal to notAllowed. There's never any need to do so. You only need this with patterns because of <define>, but you cannot define name classes. Allowing a nameClass equivalent to notAllowed would also complicated transformation rules, because you need to transform <attribute> <notAllowed/> p </attribute> into <notAllowed/> --On 12 July 2001 17:29 -0700 Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com> wrote: > > Before <except> was introduced, we can write a name class that accepts > nothing as > > <not> > <anyName/> > </not> > > which is a short hand for > > <difference> > <anyName/> > <anyName/> > </difference> > > > But I found that we now need to write the same name class as > > <anyName> > <except> > <anyName/> > </except> > </anyName> > > and this is prohibited (because it's silly) if I'm correct. > This breaks the boolean closure of the name class and therefore I want > to fix it. > > > So I'd like to propose to add <notAllowed/> as a member of the name > class. > > How do others think? > > > > regards, > -- > Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 650 786 0721 > Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: relax-ng-request@lists.oasis-open.org > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC