Hi Jeff, > > > <company> > > <division> > > <section> > > <employee role='r1'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r2'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r3'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r4'>...</employee> > > </section> > > <section> > > <employee role='r1'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r2'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r4'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r6'>...</employee> > > </section> > > <section> > > <employee role='r5'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r2'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r7'>...</employee> > > <employee role='r6'>...</employee> > > </section> > > . . . > > <committees> > > <committee> > > <member ref='r3'/> > > . . . > > </committee> > > . . . > > </committees> > > </division> > > . . . > > </company> > > [schema at end of mail] > > If the member element had chosen to refer to "r2" would this > example become > invalid (or is it that it is already invalid)? It is not already invalid, and yes, it would become invalid if it referenced "r2". > Is this what Henry means by: > > > The difference between the simple case where the two share scope and > > this case is that in the first a failure always means a missing key, > > and the latter it may mean a missing key, _or_ multiple > occurrences of > > a key. > > Would this be more accurate if it read "_or_ a reference to a key with > multiple occurences" or is it better as it was written. When Henry said "failure", I believe he was talking specifically about a failure of the key reference to find an appropriate key, not a general validity problem. But yes, it is the _reference_ that is invalid, not the fact that there are two occurrences of "r2". > > Thanks for the info... > Jeff Rafter > Defined Systems > http://www.defined.net > XML Development and Developer Web Hosting > > Priscilla Walmsley Vitria TechnologyReceived on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 09:25:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:34 GMT