W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Content models differ syntactically but not (?) semantically

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:23:45 +0100
Message-ID: <00b001c0d965$355d11b0$0200a8c0@greyarea>
To: "Mark Ingram" <mingram@atreus-systems.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Having just checked the schema for schemas there is no difference between
the two. They both have the same content model;

<xs:sequence>
  <xs:element ref="xs:annotation" minOccurs="0" />
  <xs:group ref="xs:typeDefParticle" minOccurs="0" />
  <xs:group ref="xs:attrDecls" />
</xs:sequence>

In the prose the latter example ( extension ) has an unnecessary extra set
of parentheses.

Martin Gudgin
DevelopMentor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Ingram" <mingram@atreus-systems.com>
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: Content models differ syntactically but not (?) semantically


> I wish to have the difference between the following two content models
> clarified.
>
> Taken from the table-section headed
> 'When the <complexContent> alternative is chosen, the following elements
> are relevant ...'
> in the table entitled
> 'XML Representation Summary: complexType Element Information Item'
> in section 3.4.2 'XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions:'
>
> <restriction
>  base = QName
>  id = ID
>  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
>  Content: (annotation?, (group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute
> | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))
> </restriction>
>
> <extension
>  base = QName
>  id = ID
>  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
>  Content: (annotation?, ((group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute
> | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?)))
> </extension>
>
> Thank you,
> Mark Ingram.
>
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 11:25:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:50 GMT