I see now... BTW, I did reconsider the "bug" thing so I've renamed it to "problem" when I've answered myself the "tiny titles" question. I've never doubted of your willingness to fix bugs when they are real ones, and I say a big THANK YOU for that attitude. I should have avoided the word "bug" in the 1st mail.
I'll try to find an alternative representation that's "good enough", ... or remove "syntactic sugar" alltogether. Thank you! On 8/29/06, Hussein Shafie <hussein at xmlmind.com> wrote: > 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. > > -- Fabian Mandelbaum IS Engineer
