Hello! > At best I'd say its a redundant construct. There would never be a time when > something like this: > > (foo@)@ > > would make sense where @ is any repetition operator. What is the meaning of > something like "foo one or more times, as many times as you want"? It > probably should be considered an error, but I don't think that the syntax > in the spec specifically disallows it. But, in the case at hand, the > parenthesis are just syntactic sugar and have no use, so its relaly like > saying "foo*?", which would be illegal, right? I agree "(foo*)?" make no sence, but this could not be the reason for xerces to change this to an illegal expression like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (because this doesn´t fits to the xml grammer).
Bye Jens -- ********************************************************************** * Jens Muehlenhoff * * * * student of Computer Science * * * * University of Paderborn (Germany) * * * * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **********************************************************************
