Re: [relaxng-user] content-type for notAllowed

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 19:55, David Tolpin wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to follow the specification. 
> 
> is the following valid
> 
> element foo {notAllowed}
> 
> ?

Definitely.  It's explicitly allowed by the grammar in Section 5.

> I am asking because content-type is not specified for notAllowed, 
> but the restriction is that "All patterns occurring as the content of an
> element pattern must have a content-type."
> 
> So, notAllowed should have a content-type? 

It looks like there is a bug in 7.2 here. However, I don't think the fix
is to give notAllowed a content-type, because in the simplified form
notAllowed only appears as the content of the element by itself.  Rather
I think the fix is to say that a pattern occurring as the content of an
element must either be notAllowed or must have a content type.  This
parallels the production for top in Section 5.

James