• From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@c...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:25:48 -0600

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" <crism@m...> 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: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
    subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
    List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
    List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
    
    

• References:
  • Unexpected Ambiguous Model in XSD Schema
    • From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@c...>
  • Re: Unexpected Ambiguous Model in XSD Schema
    • From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@m...>