a simpler document type definition language?

[Jurg Wullschleger]

> > 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 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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)