[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> > 2.5 Notation Declarations
> >
> > Notation declarations are made with XSC:Notation elements nested in the
> > XSC:XSchema element.
> >
> > <!ELEMENT XSC:Notation (Doc?, ((PubidLiteral, SystemLiteral?) |
> > SystemLiteral))>
> > [...]
> >
> > Notations may include either a Public Identifier and an optional system
> > literal, or just a system literal.
>
> Confusing way to put it. Notations may include a pubid or a sysid
> or both in that order. The formal content model is phrased the way
> it is -- Ron's draft used
>
> (PubidLiteral | SystemLiteral | (PubidLiteral, SystemLiteral))
>
> -- just to avoid SGML ambiguity.
Unfortunately, this content model is the ambiguous one!
===
[test]$ cat ambig
<!doctype ambig [
<!element ambig
- -
(p | s | (p, s))
>
<!element (p,s)
- -
(#PCDATA)
>
]>
[test]$ nsgmls -s ambig
nsgmls:ambig:5:28:E: content model is ambiguous: when no tokens have been
matched, both the 1st and 2nd occurrences of "P" are possible
nsgmls:ambig:12:1:E: no document element
[test]$
===
I think Simon has it right in terms of the content model, while your
statement (one or the other or both in order) is a clearer formulation in
English. Blame this on the ambiguity rules!:)
Arjun
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
- References:
- Notations
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
|