Thanks Tommy.

Of course, any message from a founding member of the XSLT mail
list that concludes with "GOOD LUCK" is scant encouragement indeed! :-)

And I
agree. I'm so happy XML got rid of inclusions. I just wish my current customer
had already moved on. . .

Don

--- On Mon, 10/5/09, B Tommie Usdin
<btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: B Tommie Usdin
<btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re:  SGML Inclusions and infinitive
recursion (in XSLT)
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Monday,
October 5, 2009, 6:25 PM
> At 3:50 PM -0700 10/5/09, Don Smith
> wrote:
> >
What I want to do is produce, for every element, not
> only what it's declared
content model is (in DTDParse's
> output file, the content of
<content-model-expanded>),
> but also of any inclusions that apply to the
element. And
> that's where the problem is.
> > 
> > If I recall SGML
inclusions correctly, an inclusion
> declared on an element applies to all
child elements all the
> way to the bottom of the relevant part of the
document
> tree.
> 
> 1. An inclusion declared on an element applies to all
child
> elements all the way to the bottom of the relevant part of
> the
document tree UNLESS there is an exclusion at a lower
> level that over-rides
the inclusion.
> 
> 2. In models with inclusions and/or exclusions and
elements
> that appear in more than one context (in other words, most
> real
document models), it is not possible to specify what
> elements are allowed in
another element; the answer is
> context-dependent. Imagine, for example, a
document model
> with <footnote> included at the top level, and
> excluded on
<footnote>. If <footnote> contains
> <paragraph>s and <paragraph>s are also
allowed
> in other contexts, then some <paragraph>s are allowed
> to contain
<footnote>s (those not in
> <footnote>s) and other <paragraph>s are not
>
allowed to contain <footnote>s (those that are in
> <footnote>s. This is a
very common situation in SGML
> models for prose documents.
> 
> Unless you
are working with SGML that has inclusions but
> not exclusions (which is
possible, I suppose), you will not
> be able to produce such a list unless it
lists each element
> in each context. And sometimes the contexts may be many
>
levels nested. (If <paragraph> can contain
> <list> which can contain <item>
then, using the
> example above, <item> may contain <footnote>
> unless the
<item> is inside a <footnote>, such
> as if it is in a <paragraph> that is in
a
> <footnote>.
> 
> I started to write "I hope that helps", but I know that
it
> doesn't.
> 
> Thank you for reminding me of one of the best things about
> the XML specification. And GOOD LUCK!
> 
> -- Tommie
> 
> -- 
>
======================================================================
> B.
Tommie Usdin           
>             mailto:btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.       
>         http://www.mulberrytech.com
> 17
West Jefferson Street         
>              
>    Phone: 301/315-9631
>
Suite 207             
>                
>       Direct Line: 301/315-9634
>
Rockville, MD  20850         
>                
>        Fax: 301/315-8285
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in
> XML and SGML
>
======================================================================
> 
>
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
>
XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> To
unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
> or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> --~--