This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Proposal #2 for BNF/EBNF markup
- From: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve dot Maler at east dot sun dot com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:30:39 -0400
- References: <"Eve L. Maler"'s message of "Thu, 06 Apr 2000 10:43:36 -0400"><"Eve L. Maler"'s message of "Wed, 05 Apr 2000 15:26:35 -0400"><"Eve L. Maler"'s message of "Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:53:53 -0500"><4.2.0.58.20000322152856.00ad79b0@abnaki.East.Sun.Com><4.2.0.58.20000405151715.00961740@abnaki.East.Sun.Com><4.2.0.58.20000406103917.00b796d0@abnaki.East.Sun.Com>
- Reply-To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
At 11:39 AM 4/6/00 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>| >I'm starting to think the semantic for 'nt' and 'constraint'
>| >should be that the generate content if empty (in which case they
>| >must have an IDREF (expressed as an xpointer)) or they can
>| >contain content. [Can you say #CONREF? :-)]
>|
>| That seems okay.
>
>Do we want to support pointers to constraints in other documents?
>If not, then I think constraint should be empty.
Sorry, I didn't catch that this paragraph referred to both 'nt' and
'constraint'. Yes, constraint should be empty.
(You're already incorporating this into DocBook, right? Am I off the hook
for doing any more designing, then? :-)
Eve
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center elm @ east.sun.com