• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:17:48 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC45B@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC45B@h...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:

> I grant that in more cases than not, leaving the max 
> occurrences infinite works, but wasn't the lack of 
> being able to model a finite set one of the precise 
> reasons for critiqueing DTD modeling?

It might have been an excuse, but not a reason:  m,n-bounded
repetition can definitely be done in DTDs, though it is
even more annoying than in RNG, where f,f,f,f?,f?,f?,f? is
legal for f{3,7} as it is not in DTDs, where you must
say f,f,f,(f,(f,(f,f?)?)?)?.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan@r...
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie

• References:
  • RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Previous by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread