• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 08:34:27 -0700

Christopher R. Maden wrote:

> I concur (though you'd know better than I).  I was actually a little
> surprised to note that (foo ?) isn't legal, not even in SGML (see <URL:
> http://crism.maden.org/consulting/pub/sgmldefs.html#[130] >).

I had always thought this was a typo in the spec
(missing a 'ts' between 'generic identifier' and
'occurrence indicator').  As it turns out, it's
specified this way to keep the grammar LL(1);
otherwise there would be an ambiguity at '+'
between occurrence indicators

	<!ELEMENT x - - FOO + >

and inclusion exceptions

	<!ELEMENT x - - FOO +BAR>


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: %x;? - Opportunity for pedantry and exegesis
    • From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@m...>

• Prev by Date: What is more expensive persisting DOM in Memory or creatingDOM
• Next by Date: support for schemas on ie
• Previous by thread: Re: %x;? - Opportunity for pedantry and exegesis
• Next by thread: Re: %x;? - Opportunity for pedantry and exegesis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread