Jonathan Borden wrote,
>  ...
>  An issue for discussion is whether to use regexp expressions "as-is" or to
>  rewrite these in an XML equivalent. Since code exists for regexp matching,
>  my initial thoughts were to try to leave the regexps intact and attach
them
>  as constraints via the attribute "regexp". In many ways, your proposal is
>  more logical from the pure XML perspective, on the other hand there are
lots
>  of regexps in XML 1.0 and using this syntax will make the document
>  significantly larger.
> 
I'd include the regexp.  You might call the attribute "match".  That would
fit right in with the notion of 'productions'.  Only problem is, escaping
"<" and so on would make them harder to read.  If the need to escape
characters makes the regex's too unpleasant, follow the approaches taken in
RELAX.  After all, RELAX specifies grammars too.

Tom Passin