[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > the simplest form i can think of would look something like this: > (examples > > in DTD syntax) > > there are only 4 types of elements: > > > > - empty elements > > <!ELEMENT name1 EMTPY > > > > > - elements that contain data > > > > <!ELEMENT name2 (#PCDATA) > > > > > - list elements > > > > <!ELEMENT name3 (name1|name2|name3|name4)* > > > > > - structural elements of a fixed length > > > > <!ELEMENT name4 ((name1|name2),name3,name4,(name5|name6|name7)) > > > I would go even simpler than that. Don't allow nested brackets, #4 could > be > represented like this: > > <!ELEMENT name4 (nameA,name3,name4,nameB)> > <!ELEMENT nameA (name1|name2)> > <!ELEMENT nameB (name5|name6|name7)> > yes, that's maybe better. i was affraid of defining it this way, because there are a lot of extra elements needed. but these elements help a lot in a better structuring, so it's maybe good to be forced to use them. for example, it also solves the problem the "running text pattern" solves, but in a more natural way, i think. juerg wullschleger xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|

Cart



