W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2005

pointless particles definition

From: Mike Skells <mike.skells@ebizz-consulting.com>
Date: 05 Dec 2005 16:00:28 -0700
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d501c5cb10$52aef480$0a01a8c0@MikeLaptop>
Hi,
I dont believe that the definition is quite correct
 
the definition for 1.0 is 

 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-sequence> <sequence> 

One of the following must be true: 

2.2.1  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles} is empty.
2.2.2 All of the following must be true: 
2.2.2.1 The particle within which this
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-sequence> <sequence> appears has
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#p-max_occurs> {max occurs} and
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#p-min_occurs> {min occurs} of 1.
2.2.2.2 One of the following must be true: 
2.2.2.2.1 The  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-sequence>
<sequence>'s  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles} has
only one member.
2.2.2.2.2 The particle within which this
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-sequence> <sequence> appears is
itself among the  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles}
of a  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-sequence> <sequence>.
 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-all> <all> 

One of the following must be true: 

2.2.1  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles} is empty.
2.2.2  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles} has only
one member.
 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice> <choice> 

One of the following must be true: 

2.2.1  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles} is empty
and the particle within which this
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice> <choice> appears has
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#p-min_occurs> {min occurs} of 0.
2.2.2 All of the following must be true: 
2.2.2.1 The particle within which this
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice> <choice> appears has
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#p-max_occurs> {max occurs} and
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#p-min_occurs> {min occurs} of 1.
2.2.2.2 One of the following must be true: 
2.2.2.2.1 The  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice> <choice>'s
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles} has only one
member.
2.2.2.2.2 The particle within which this
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice> <choice> appears is
itself among the  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#particles> {particles}
of a  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice> <choice>.

However this ignores any use of annotations.
is it unreasonable to have a sequence that includes another sequence, where
he included sequence has some annotation, for example some custom
documntation that presents some meaning and context to the included
sequence.
Similarly there could be (and indeed is is some of the schames that I use) a
appInfo element that affects the use of the contained sequence.
 
With the current definition the redundency is correct if the annotation is
not being processed, for instance if the schema is being considered forely
for validation, but it is not pointless for other applications.
 
 
I would appriciate your comments on the above
 
Yours
 
Mike Skells
Chief Architect
ValidSoft Ltd
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 23:02:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:10 GMT