Re: <notAllowed/> as a name class

I think it's good that users cannot right a name-class equal to notAllowed. 
There's never any need to do so.  You only need this with patterns because 
of <define>, but you cannot define name classes.

Allowing a nameClass equivalent to notAllowed would also complicated 
transformation rules, because you need to transform

<attribute>
  <notAllowed/>
   p
</attribute>

into

<notAllowed/>


--On 12 July 2001 17:29 -0700 Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI 
<> wrote:

>
> Before <except> was introduced, we can write a name class that accepts
> nothing as
>
> <not>
>   <anyName/>
> </not>
>
> which is a short hand for
>
> <difference>
>   <anyName/>
>   <anyName/>
> </difference>
>
>
> But I found that we now need to write the same name class as
>
> <anyName>
>   <except>
>     <anyName/>
>   </except>
> </anyName>
>
> and this is prohibited (because it's silly) if I'm correct.
> This breaks the boolean closure of the name class and therefore I want
> to fix it.
>
>
> So I'd like to propose to add <notAllowed/> as a member of the name
> class.
>
> How do others think?
>
>
>
> regards,
> --
> Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI                          +1 650 786 0721
> Sun Microsystems                   
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: 
>
>