- From: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@allette.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:49:38 +1100
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Eric van der Vlist wrote: > Just wondering how a recursive group such as: > > <xs:group name="group"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="foo"> > <xs:complexType> > <xs:group ref="group" minOccurs="0"/> > </xs:complexType> > </xs:element> > <xs:element name="bar" type="xs:token"/> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:group> > > may be redefine without confusion between the <xs:group ref="group"/> > meaning "extension", the <xs:group ref="group" minOccurs="0"/> meaning > "bogus extension" the <xs:group ref="group" minOccurs="0"/> meaning > "reference" ??? Jeez Eric, with a sentence like that I think you just qualified to be writing specs yourself ;-) Anyway, isn't this already covered in the spec: "6 Within the [children], for each <group> the appropriate case among the following must be true: 6.1 If it has a <group> among its contents at some level the ·actual value· of whose ref [attribute] is the same as the ·actual value· of its own name attribute plus target namespace, then all of the following must be true: 6.1.1 It must have exactly one such group. ..." It seems that 6.1.1 prohibits a redefinition of your above example since it would have to groups among its contents at some level where the ref attribute is the same as its own name. Cheers, /Eddie > > > Thanks > > Eric > > -- > Rendez-vous ą Paris pour le Forum XML. > http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com > http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 17:41:51 UTC