Peter B. West wrote:
W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
Eliot,Absolutely, we should follow the spec--that is the safest route. I was really just noting that, given the unique aspect of this one sequence group, XEP's validator was not entirely out of line for not enforcing it strictly. But it probably should issue a warning, at least. I'll submit that on the XEP support list.
I'm not sure how to proceed. The war-cry of workers on the X-web is surely, "Remember HTML!" The argument for a new content model for simple-page-master is cogent, and I'm sure that the editors will listen to it. (How the result will be expressed is a different matter. How *do* you express it?)
In the meantime, the spec is plain on this point, so why not follow it?
Any AND content model can be refactored as an OR group of sequence groups:
<!ELEMENT page-sequence-master
((region-body,
region-before?,
region-after?,
region-start?,
region-end?) |
(region-before,
region-body,
region-after?,
region-start?,
region-end?) |
...
>
But as you can imagine, this can get quite long, especially when you have to ensure that the resulting model is not ambiguous. I will submit a request to clarify the true constraints on this content model to the FO editors list.
Cheers,
Eliot
--
W. Eliot Kimber, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consultant, ISOGEN International
1016 La Posada Dr., Suite 240
Austin, TX 78752 Phone: 512.656.4139
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
