I think you're right (although Xerces didn't complain about my formulation). (img+, figcaption?) is the better way to express the intent.
(Clearly it's been too long since I had to do serious DTD model development.)
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
On 12/22/17, 11:18 AM, "Christopher R. Maden" <> wrote:
On 12/22/2017 12:12 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote:
> If I was coding this as a DTD it would be:
>
> <!ELEMENT figure
> ((figcaption, (img)+) |
> ((img)+, figcaption) |
> ((img)+))
>>
>
> Which is definitely not ambiguous.
I disagree. An initial img can match either the second or third img
token in the content model, thus ambiguous (in the slightly weird SGML
sense of the term).
In a DTD, I’d use
<!ELEMENT figure
((figcaption, img+) |
(img+, figcaption?)) >
~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd
<URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Emperor Norton had the right idea.
_______________________________________________________________________
XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe:
subscribe:
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
