James Clark scripsit:
> element %foo { }
> %foo = x | y | z
> %foo |= x
> element parent %foo { }
All good.
> I think the clean solution is to add an attribute to define. For
> example, you might have an "as" attribute, with possible values of
> "pattern" and "nameClass", defaulting to "pattern", so you would say:
>
> <define name="foo" as="nameClass">
> <choice>
> <ref name="bar"/>
> <ref name="baz"/>
> </choice>
> </define>
>
> to define a name class.
Sounds right. This could also be extended to defining datatypes that
can be restricted with new parameters using as="datatype".
> Note that
>
> <define name="foo" as="nameClass">
> <name>x</name>
> <name>y</name>
> </define>
>
> would be equivalent to
>
> <define name="foo" as="nameClass">
> <choice>
> <name>x</name>
> <name>y</name>
> </choice>
> </define>
I wonder if that would be too confusing. (I never use the XML
syntax myself, so it wouldn't affect me.)
--
My corporate data's a mess! John Cowan
It's all semi-structured, no less. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But I'll be carefree [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using XSLT
On an XML DBMS.
