> Meanwhile, <oneOrMore> also plays two roles. But they are *not*
> orthogonal; if we do not impose any restrictions, we deviate from the
> realm of the tree regular language.
>
> We have introduced restrictions. Having clarified the semantics
> of <oneOrMore>, I think that this construct now plays two non-orthogonal
> roles and that it is much more appropriate to have two constructs
> (which may have the same tag name).
The current restriction is already restrictive enough to make RELAX NG a
tree regular language.
So what is the advantage of your proposal? Is it just the simpler BNF?
regards,
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems
