W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

several questions

From: Volker Renneberg <i21avore@UniBw-Muenchen.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:32:34 -0500
Message-ID: <38C3DDA2.44618DF7@unibw-muenchen.de>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
CC: Philip Wadler <wadler@research.bell-labs.com>

I have some questions on the new version of "XML Schema Part 1:

1) What about the "unambiguous content model"? Are you moving away from
it because the only hint I find is in 3.6 (last Note before 3.7): "The
above definition is implicitly non-deterministic, and should not be
taken as a recipe for implementations." ?

2) In 4.1 you introduce "blockDefault" and "finalDefault" by saying
they'll be explained later. It's done with "blockDefault"(4.4.2 and
there: "Element Declaration Schema Component"), but not with

3) What do you mean by "local type" in 3.2 and there: "Validation
Contribution: Element Valid (Explicit)" and there: Definition below 2.3.
Do you mean "anonymous type"?

4) In 3.6, just below the table "Schema Component: Model Group", the
spec only allows elements in "<group order='all'>...</group>"(xml
notation) constructs? Why? To avoid possible ambiguity between groups?

5) I didn't find any definite yes or no to the follow question. Say you
have(without namespace annotations):
<element name="a">
    <element name="b" type="string"/>
    <element ref="a"/><!--!!!-->

Is this allowed? I mean do you really have lexically scoped symbol
spaces or is it only allowed to reference top level definitions.

6) paragraph 3.2: "Element declaration details". Both, element
(on the top level) and element declarations(nested in type-defs/decls)
are allowed. In the heading "element declaration details" are you using
the word "declaration" for both cases?

Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 11:34:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:52 UTC