Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI wrote:
> The current restriction is already restrictive enough to make RELAX NG a
> tree regular language.
Yes, it is. On the other hand, I now think the restriction is ugly. It does
not allow what could be allowed. E.g., ((@*)?, (@*)?)*.
This stems from the fact that <oneOrMore> for repeating elements and <oneOrMore>
for repeating elements play non-orthgonal roles and are neverthless "unified".
> So what is the advantage of your proposal? Is it just the simpler BNF?
A Simpler BNF means that the language becomes easier to learn.
Cheers,
Makoto
