Yet another validity question

[Marcus Carr]

John Cowan wrote:

> > One reason it is there is to allow "elephants", but exclusions were
> > later removed from XML:
> >     <!ELEMENT HOLDER - O (ELEPHANT*) -ELEPHANT>
> > in which HOLDER must now be empty but can have a missing end tag.
>
> I suppose you mean "can have an explicit end tag", no?  After all,
> ordinary EMPTY elements don't have end tags.

I suspect that Liam was using "empty" in the sense that it is an element that cannot contain
other elements because its content model doesn't allow it to, rather than one that has the
declared content of EMPTY.


--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc at allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)