Re: missing start element

> > Which one is the correct one? Should the grammar for RNG be modified so that
> > grammar is 
> > 
> > start & (define|include|div)*
> > 
> > instead of
> > 
> > (start|define|include|div)*
> 
> No, because you can define a grammar without start pattern that you
> include in other grammars which have a start pattern.

OK. So the only grammars which can omit start element are top-level ones? In which
case it is not a pattern because it does not match?

It makes things more clear, thank you. I would still prefer to have RELAX NG schema
for RELAX NG specifying it.

David Tolpin