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

Re: clarification on Unique Particle Attribution

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 03 Nov 2001 11:28:44 +0000
To: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b4rocum8j.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
sandygao@ca.ibm.com writes:

> Hi all,
> 
> One more question about UPA: in the definition of overlapping in appendix
> H:
> 
> "They are both element declaration particles one of which is in the other's
> Ěsubstitution groupĚ."
> 
> Shouldn't it be something like:
> 
> "They are both element declaration particles one of which has the same name
> and target namespace as an element declaration in the other's substitution
> group."
> 
> Consider the following declarations:
> 
> <element name="e1"/>
> <element name="e2" substitutionGroup="e1"/>
> 
> <choice>
>   <element ref="e1"/>
>   <element name="e2" form="qualified"/>
> </choice>
> 
> In <choice> "e2" is not in the substitution group of "e1" (because "e2" is
> locally declared). But the above still violates UPA, because for an element
> "e2", we don't know which particle to use for validation.

Good catch, you're absolutely right -- I think that should be
considered for erratum status.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2001 06:27:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:57 GMT