Taco Hoekwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ><!ELEMENT one ( (a, b?, c?) | (a, c?, b?) |
> > > (b?, a, c?) | (c?, a, b?) |
> > > (b?, c?, a) | (c?, b?, a) )
>
> Berend, this doesn't actually work. The XML parser cannot find the correct
> branch so it considers the definition to be ambiguous when it finds alternative
> 2, 5 or 6 (because it has already seen 1,4 and 3 resp.)
It might be interesting to know that it does actually work :-) Xerces
finds this totally acceptable. As this is the only XML validating
parser I have, I'm interested in what other parser do. Or does anyone
know that xerces does look ahead?
According to the specs it is ambiguous, but it works :-)
In case people want to test it:
===========================
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE root SYSTEM "test.dtd">
<root>
<one> <a>...</a> <b>...</b> <c>...</c> </one>
<one> <a>...</a> <c>...</c> <b>...</b> </one>
<one> <b>...</b> <c>...</c> <a>...</a> </one>
<one> <a>...</a> </one>
</root>
===========================
===========================
<!ELEMENT root (one*)>
<!ELEMENT one ( (a, b?, c?) | (a, c?, b?) |
(b?, a, c?) | (c?, a, b?) |
(b?, c?, a) | (c?, b?, a) )>
<!ELEMENT a (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT b (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT c (#PCDATA)>
===========================
--
Groetjes,
Berend. (-:
