• To: Dan Mabbutt <Seigfried@m...>
• Subject: RE: Element Occurrence and #PCDATA
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 20 Nov 2001 14:28:29 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <CKEFIGMAOHPPOGFNFCGBGEOJEBAA.Seigfried@m...>
• References: <CKEFIGMAOHPPOGFNFCGBGEOJEBAA.Seigfried@m...>

On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 09:43, Dan Mabbutt wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> Thanks very much! Your message was "on target" for me.
> 
> Yes, I did know most of what you wrote (and, in particular, I was aware that
> the syntax "(#PCDATA)*" is watered down mixed content), but I wasn't
> completely sure that there was no other possible reason for doing it. I also
> know that it will validate correctly in the parsers I have tried. That's why
> I used the word, "meaningful" instead of "incorrect."

The reason I tend to use (#PCDATA)* is that it's easier to extend later,
just by slapping in extra elements separated by |.

The mixed content syntax seems pretty open in fairly silly ways, but
multiple approaches pass muster.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Element Occurrence and #PCDATA
    • From: Lauren Wood <lauren@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Element Occurrence and #PCDATA
    • From: "Dan Mabbutt" <Seigfried@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Element Occurrence and #PCDATA
• Next by Date: SOAP
• Previous by thread: Re: Element Occurrence and #PCDATA
• Next by thread: Re: Element Occurrence and #PCDATA
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread