[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Section 7.4
I made the distinction for purely aesthetic reasons. I found it strange in the antecedent of (attribute compete) to use p1 ~ p2, since that would more general than strictly necessary, in that it would handle attributes inside attributes. However, it would work perfectly well without the distinction. I can see that it might be confusing to make the distinction. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI" <kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com> To: <relax-ng@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:47 AM Subject: Section 7.4 I don't think the distinction between ~e and ~ is necessary. For the (element compete 2) rule, if p_1 \sim p_2 and there exists p_3 such that p_1 [n]_e p_3, then apparently p_1 is an element (because attributes cannot contain an element pattern p_3). Thus p_1 \sim p_2. The similar inference holds for the (attribute) rule. ... maybe I'm just showing my ignorance here ... 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