OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

relax-ng message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: Minor comments on the spec




> 1)
>  What is "string" in the BNF in Section 3?

I added  "The symbol string matches any string." (A string is defined in 
section 2.)

> 2)
>
> <key name="NCName">..
> <keyRef name="NCName">..
>
> should read
>
> <key name="QName">..
> <keyRef name="QName">..

Fixed.

> 3)
>
> The BNF in Section 3 does not allow <div> to have more than one <define>.
>
> I think that the RHS of grammarContent should
> be changed as below:
>
> (start | define | <div>grammarContent</div> |
> <include href="anyURI"> includeContent* </include>)*
>
> This is consistent with the schema in appendix A.
>
> The same change is required for includeContent

Note that the reference to includeContent is followed by a * in the 
productions for includeContent and grammarContent.  So I don't believe 
there's a bug there.

The bug is that there should be a * on the reference to grammarContent in 
the production for grammarContent.

> 4)
>
> <name>string</name>
>
> should read
>
> <name>QName</name>

Fixed (in both full grammar and relaxng.rng).

> 5)
>
> The last para of Section 3 mentions QName, NCName, and "combine".  On
> the other hand, the second para of 4.2 mentions "name", "type",
> "combine", and "name".  They are talking about the same places
> in the BNF.  (Section 3 says that leading and trailing whitespaces
> are allowere there and 4.2 says that they are removed by the RELAX NG
> Processor.)   I prefer the style of 4.2.

I fixed Section 3 to use the style of Section 4.2.
>
> 6)
>
> The para before last in 4.15 should say that this transforamtion
> is repeated until there is one <define> per name.

Fxed.

> Alternatively, we can
> move 4.11  after 4.15.

That would break (or complicate) 4.12 and 4.13.

> 7)
>
> In 4.18, I would like to insert "directly" between "that" and "has a
> notAllowed child element" and

I don't agree with that.  I think it's confusing to use "direct" with 
"child" in some places and not in others.  Readers will wonder how a 
"direct child" is different from a "child".

James



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC