[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: none

• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@i...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: 20 May 1999 00:05:23 +0200

* roddey@u...
|
| The original content model is pretty unambiguous. If you get one to
| two As, then D and E are optional. If you get 3 to 5 As, then D and
| E are not. But in the DFA, that would be pretty ambiguous, wouldn't
| it? 

You're quite right, my suggested transformation could inject ambiguity
into a content model that did not originally have it, and this does
make it appear much less attractive.

I haven't had time to think it through, but it might be possible to
contrive a solution that in the case of merged foo{m,n} groups would
choose different exits depending on the actual number of foos. Or it
may be too difficult to actually be much of a gain.

--Lars M.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • No Subject
    • From: roddey@u...

• Prev by Date: Re: Announcement: OmniMark is Free
• Next by Date: Re: &anytype; to RTF converter. Need help!
• Previous by thread: No Subject
• Next by thread: No Subject
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread