W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Rationale for restricted uses of "all"

From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:10:53 -0800
Message-ID: <3549BAFD79A7D411A1CF00508B62B5BC0124B8DD@exchange-us.scenicsoft.com>
To: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>, "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, Gary Robertson <gazinyork@hotmail.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> I see a orthogonality between ordering and contiguity. Could 
> you make it
> implicit that <all> implies contiguity? Yeah, sure... 
> sequence has to by
> definition; 

Oops. I contradicted myself... sequence *doesn't* have to imply contiguity,
merely ordering. For example:

<sequence>
	<a>
	<b>
	<sequence>
		<d>
		<e>
	</sequence>
</sequence>

Could (doesn't, but could) allow:  {<a/><d/><b/><e/>} as {a,b} and {d,e}
ordering are preserved. If you wanted them contiguous, you would have to
specify another model group with the sequences in it.

Of course, you know, the cow's already out of that barn...
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 16:12:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:35 GMT