Fabian Mandelbaum wrote: > > I thought that by declaring lswe:architecture like a DB > section (call it 'sintactic sugar', because lswe:architecture is > REALLY a DB section)
Even if lswe:architecture and section have the same content model, even if lswe:architecture and section always are siblings, they have different element names. Counter(n) counts: * sibling elements having the same name. * *NOT* sibling elements having the same content model. * *NOT* sibling elements even if they have different names. See http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/_distrib/doc/csssupport/counters.html > XXE would consider them siblings, not parent > (section) and child (lswe:architecture). XXE indeed considers them siblings, but siblings having different element names. > Here you have the excerpt from the Schema definition of lswe:architecture: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > db.toplevel.sections = > db.section, > lswe.architecture.section, > > .... > .... > .... > > lswe.architecture.section= > [ r:remap [ db:section [ ] ] ] > element lswe:architecture { > db.architecture.userlevel.attribute, > db.title, > db.recursive.blocks.or.sections > } > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Hope this helps clarify the 'bug'. I think I've understood what you did, but once again there is no bug that could be fixed here[*]. However, I agree with the fact that XXE does not make it easy coping with your problem. ---- [*] We are not upset when users find bugs in our products. On the contrary, we are glad to fix these bugs and we are grateful to the users who reported them.
