Re: [] or ? for optional

Let's agree to disagree, then. If the argument is that (...)? can be thought of 
as being part of the syntax itself, why wouldn't the same be true of [...], hm?



David RR Webber wrote:
> 
> Message text written by Eduardo Gutentag
> >
> While [] is perfectly clear for me, I think that in this context (that is,
> a non-Unix context) ()? is more appropriate
> <<<<<<<<<<
> 
> Eduardo,
> 
> I think the opposite.  Since ( ) ?  has meaning from the DTD stance,
> people may be confused into thinking the ( ) ? is part of the RELAX NG
> syntax itself.
> 
> I vote for the [  ]  approach as this is standard in publishing and
> printing
> world.
> 
> DW.

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: 
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |