🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik Naggum <SGML@ifi.uio.no> writes:

|  I think the clue here is the definition of "exception" (and, by
|  reference, "inclusion" and "exclusion":

|      4.130 exceptions: A parameter of an element declaration that
|      modifies the effect of the element's "content model" <126>, and the
|      content models of elements occurring within it, by permitting
|      inclusions and prohibiting exclusions.

|      4.131 exclusions: Elements that are not allowed anywhere in the
|      content of an element or its subelements been though the application
|      content model or inclusions would permit them optionally.

|      4.157 inclusions: Elements that are allowed anywhere in the content
|      of an element or its subelements even though the applicable model
|      does not permit them.

|  An inclusion cannot, by definition, affect the content model in which it
|  occurs, because it allows elements not allowed by the content model, and
|  in the event of a potential clash, the model group in the content model
|  takes precedence.

I concur that the above definitions imply that inclusions cannot affect 
definition 11.2.4.3 directly.  That is, inclusions cannot satisfy
primitive content tokens.  However, I believe that 11.2.5.1 confuses the
issue (lines 14-21) and this should be cleared up in the definitions.

Regarding exclusions and their affect on ambiguous content models:

What about <!ELEMENT B (X | A | X) >.  This is an ambiguous content model.
But if "X" is excluded from B is it still ambiguous?  By 11.2.4.3, to be
ambiguous there must be an element that occurs in an instance of B, that
can satisfy more than one primitive content token (X, in this example).
But, by definition 4.131 (above), X is not allowed anywhere in the 
content of B.   Doesn't this mean that X cannot occur in an
instance of B, and thus, the content model is not ambiguous when X is
excluded?

Even if I am missing something, and the example above is not a valid
argument that exclusions can affect the ambiguity of content models, I
I believe that the definition of "ambiguous content models" is still
misleading because:
1. inclusions are a component of content models, and...
2. a kind of ambiguity can be introduced by inclusions: between 
inclusions and primitive content tokens.  Resolving ambiguity by
disambiguating rules while parsing the document instance, is not the same
as not being ambiguous.

If the definition of ambiguous content models applies only to model groups
then why not restate it as such?  Thus, removing any possible confusion
to implementors and users about what it covers (and what it does not).

I appreciated Eric's response and learned from it.  More comments from any
and all will be appreciated.  Anne Brueggemann-Klein has sent me a copy of
her paper on "Unambiguity of SGML Content Models".  I am also working on
a paper on ambiguity.  I would like to hear more on this issue.  Is there
a concensus in the SGML community regarding the equivalence of ambiguous
content models and ambiguous model groups?  Does anyone feel that the
definition is misleading or causes other problems?

Regards,
Rick Matzen
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater OK 74074
<matzen@a.cs.okstate.edu>