This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif at pinkjuice dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:14:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
- References: <878yspd1hn.fsf@nwalsh.com> <3ED72340.7040906@pinkjuice.com> <ltk7c8yc3c.fsf@colina.demon.co.uk> <3ED73006.20301@pinkjuice.com> <3ED77572.7060902@kosek.cz> <3ED7A9A3.3070700@pinkjuice.com> <3EDA181E.1010401@kosek.cz>
Jirka Kosek wrote:
Tobias Reif wrote:
It will satisfy most of the requirements, yes.
(Note that Norm lists one shortcoming:
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
"A future version of RELAX NG might give us back our exclusions.")
This is not shortcoming,
Obviously, a mechanism for exclusions is not a shortcoming, and I didn't
say it would be. The lack of exclusions in current versions of Relax
seems to be a shortcoming, no?
but profit.
Exclusions are quite useful
Yes, that's why Norm wants to see this mechanism in futire versions of
Relax, AFAICS.
mechanism known from SGML DTDs but missing in XML ones. Exclusions allow
you to remove some elements from content model without needing to change
this content. This is useful for complex DTDs where you have content
models stored in parametric entities.
I think you misunderstood me again, as so many times before.
If I understood Norm correctly, the lack of (a mechanism supporting)
exclusions in the current version of Relax is a limitation, especially
regarding his requirements.
Tobi
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org