Hello Eric.
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 19:39 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Wouldn't a 100% RNG pattern (Schematron free) work?
Maybe... but I couldn't work it out!
>
> I'd be tempted to translate your English requirement as:
>
> element lexeme {
> grapheme+
> & (phoneme|alias) +
> & example *
> }
>
> That should work if by "one or more of either phoneme or alias elements"
> you mean that their should be at least one of them.
Yes, that's right.
(phoneme | alias)+
>
> Or have I missed something?
<grin/> No Eric.
<lexeme>
<phoneme></phoneme>
<grapheme></grapheme>
<alias></alias>
<example></example>
<phoneme></phoneme>
</lexeme>
<lexeme>
<grapheme></grapheme>
<alias></alias>
</lexeme>
<lexeme>
<example></example>
<grapheme></grapheme>
<phoneme></phoneme>
</lexeme>
Now all validate!
PLS/SSML says thanks to Eric!
regards DaveP.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/2U_rlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rng-users/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
