re parentRef
> I would not emphasize the term re-use as that may imply that this is the > only use case for parentRef. Imagine that you have the grammar that uses > parentRef and this grammar is placed in a file and that it is referred > using externalRef from two different parent grammars. Each of these two > parent grammars must define the referred pattern but they can define it > differently. So the parentRef in this case acts like calling an abstract > pattern that is implemented/defined in the parent grammar. I don't see it as abstract? The pattern is 'real', in use as if defined in the referencing schema? For the grammar to be used, i.e. useful, I can refer to either parent A or B, both of which must define the pattern. When I validate an instance I will use schema A or B, I can't use the referencing schema, since it does not exist as an entity itself? Agreed 'use' is better than 're-use' though. -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/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/
