> I don't see where there is any confusion in the interpretation of the
> examples you gave if we stick to these definitions.
It appears that I have misunderstood this issue!
I can think of two reasons. First, as a principle, RELAX NG prohibits
those patterns which cannot be satisfied by any documents. This principle
is proposed by my following mail:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/relax-ng/200106/msg00127.html
This principle prohibits <group><data .../><data .../></group>, but
does not prohibit<group><data .../><element .../></group>.
Second, I think that users will be confused if we allow consecutive
<data>. For example, people would expect that <foo>1 2</foo> matches
element foo {xsd:short, xsd:short}. There is no point in allowing such
meaningless patterns.
> I think it's fundamentally wrong for a particular element to
> simultaneously have as children typed content (ie something that matches
> <data>) and elements, eg
James also wrote:
>
> <foo>123<bar/></foo>
>
> where 123 matches <data type="int"/> rather than <text/>. This is the same
> reason why I want a stronger restriction than you on mixing elements and
> data.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/relax-ng/200106/msg00139.html
--
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <>
