Danny Ayers wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:07 +0000, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I very much like the general approach of this Pace, I reckon it's very close to what's needed.
If there is some way to lose atom:notation without introducing ambiguity it would be better (if something is needed, what about atom:type as used on content - might that be a suitable replacement?)
How about: "a Structured Extension construct must have at least one required attribute or one required child element"?
- Sam Ruby
