Re: [Model] Section 4.2

I believe that there is no point in defining an LFBLibrary with no 
content.  However:
1) It doesn't hurt anything for that to be a compliant document
2) More importantly, getting the schema to allow each piece to be 
optional, but requiring something, was going to be a lot of work.
So, since it was hard to get right, and basically didn't matter, the 
schema allows empty content.

Yours,
Joel

At 11:17 AM 1/5/2007, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

>Although the first paragraph says "one or more blocks" within the root
>element <LFBLibrary>, the following text indicates "zero or more" since
>all elements are optional (except for the description, which seems
>unintended to be non-optional).
>- which one is correct?
>- what would be the point to defining an LFB that has zero elements?
>- Should there be some that are a must-have in order to allow for
>something meaningful?
>
>
>I am going to stop flooding the list with new issues just so we can pick
>up on the ones i have been posting so far. In the meantime, on the ones
>where a known path has been defined - I will enter entries into
>the tracker.
>
>cheers,
>jamal