> (1) paths of arbitrary lengths (e.g., paragarphs in
> chapters/sections/subsections are identified by numbers,
> but paragaraphs in column articles are not).
As you said, it is beyond XML DTD's ID/IDREF capability, but still a
nice-to-have feature. The cost of this feature is the concepts of [n]e, [n]a,
and \sim. By removing this feature, as you did in your rewrite, will
need a simpler \sim only.
So I guess this is really just a matter of cost-effectiveness. Is this
feature deserves three additional concepts in the spec? Apparently, you
don't think it's worth the cost. I guess I can live without this
feature. RELAX Core didn't have this, but nobody complains.
> (2) key/keyRef declarations can be combined with <choice> (see the
> production rule for the non-terminal "value")
It looks like <choice>ing keys/keyrefs are unnecessary as you said. But
I don't know how it complicates the spec. Isn't it just a matter of
changing the 7.1 BNF?
> (3) key/keyRef declarations can be combined with <list> (again, see the
> production rule for the non-terminal "value")
I think there is no such thing as "one-to-one correspondence between
identifiers and elements/attributes" from the very beginning. RELAX NG
doesn't introduce the concept of "identifiable elements/attributes". So
adding list of IDs will break nothing.
And prohibiting <list> of <key>s will complicate the spec.
So I think the current symmetry between <key> and <keyref> is nice.
> (4) key/keyRef declarations within <list> can be freely combined
> with <oneOrMore>, <interleave>, <group>, and <choice> (see the
> production rule for the non-terminal "tokens")
But this one is actually contributing to simplify the current spec.
regards,
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems
