Re: XS: Construction Rule Features

[Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> At 21:44 24/05/97 -0400, Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> >You already have to handle consruction rules with the same specifity
> >whether or not you allow attributes to be attached to construction
> >rules
> 
> Actually not.  The main motivating factor for designing element construction
> rules to be as simple as they are now is that it makes it impossible to have
> a single element matching two different element construction rules with the
> same specificity. It's also an error to have more than one occurrence of the
> same element construction rule in a single part of a DSSSL specification.

Okay, a question about theory and then one about practice:

Isn't it the "specificity" rule that makes the two rules in error?

Implementors: is recognizing specifity conflicts much harder than recognizing
identical qualified-gis in construction rules? I would have presumed that the
actual machinery would be "calculate the specificity of all matching rules,
look for the highest, and complain if two are the same".

 Paul Prescod



 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist