[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: roddey@us.ibm.com
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:36:51 -0600
>Excellent things. XML was right to simplify SGML and get rid of & and
>exceptions. I hope XSchema will reintroduce both of them, and more.
>
Hmmm. But if schema becomes "thu way" that structural validation is done, then
it won't be some optional part of XML. It will be basically a core part of XML,
in very single implementation out there. So, if XML was right to leave it out to
begin with, why is it a good thing to bring it back now? Have the reasons for
having left it out changed?
>>Just the m to n repetition system means that DFAs wouldn't work anymore right
>
>n{2 to 5} can be replaced by (n, n, (n, (n, (n)?)?)?)
>
>(n, m){2,5} can be replaced by ((n,m), (n,m), (n,m, (n,m (n,m)?)?)?)
>
>(n|m){2,5} can be replaced by
> ((n|m), (n|m), (n, ((n, (n|m))
> | (m, (n|m))))
> | (m, (n, (n|m))
> | (m, (n|m))))
>
>(n&m){2 to 5} can be replaced by
> ( ((n, m)| (m,n)),
> ((n, m)| (m,n)),
> ( ((n, m)| (m,n)), ( ((n, m)| (m,n)), ((n, m)| (m,n))?)?)? )
>
Well, that's true on the 'just thinking bout it' level. But is it practical?
What if its n{20 to 1000} or something of that nature? That wouldn't be at all
unreasonable from a user's standpoint, but what would be the practical
implications for the data structures used during the creation of the DFA and the
transition table itself?
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)
|
