[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
/ John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh scripsit:
|
|> / Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> was heard to say:
|> | I don't know about W3C schemas, but the XML spec is not at all clear that a
|> | non-deterministic content model in a DTD is an error. Indeed some versions of
|> | Xerces have not so flagged it.
|>
|> From 3.2.1 of XML 1.0 3e, it seems pretty clear to me:
|>
|> For compatibility, it is an error if the content model allows an
|> element to match more than one occurrence of an element type in the
|> content model.
|>
|> Granted, "for compatibility" says, in short, we didn't have to do it
|> this way, but we did for SGML compatibility. I don't think that
|> negates the normative weight of the rest of the sentence though.
|
| "It is an error" doesn't mean that a processor has to report that error.
| It just means that a document author (or DTD author in this case) can't
| count on the processor not complaining.
Indeed. Maybe I came in on the middle of a thread. Maybe it's just
Friday afternoon. Elliotte said "the XML spec is not clear that [it's]
an error". I think it is clear. That's all I was saying.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Is your cucumber bitter? Throw it away.
http://nwalsh.com/ | Are there briars in your path? Turn
| aside. That is enough. Do not go on to
| say, 'Why were things of this sort ever
| brought into the world?'--Marcus
| Aurelius
PGP signature
|
