W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2002

Re: all group

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Dec 2002 19:45:38 +0000
To: Herve Verjus <herve.verjus@esia.univ-savoie.fr>
Cc: xmlschema <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bptrjnvdp.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Herve Verjus <herve.verjus@esia.univ-savoie.fr> writes:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > > eumH. Where did you find these constraints ????? I defined an XML Schema
> > > where 1) 2) and 4) are violated and the schema was validated (????)
> >
> > In the REC [1]:
> >
> >    * (all) . . . In this case, to reduce implementation complexity,
> >      {particles} is restricted to contain local and top-level element
> >      declarations only, with {min occurs}=0 or 1, {max occurs}=1.
> 
> OK. You're right. But i used group such as:
> 
> <group name="1" >
> <choice>
> 	<group ref="2"/>
>         ...
> </choice>
> </group>
> 
> ...
> 
> <group name="2">
>  <sequence>
> 	<group ref="3" minOccurs=0 maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> 	<element...../>
>  </sequence>
> </group>
> 
> ...etc.
> 
> I validate all my XML Schemas using IBM WebSphere 5 validator (the latest
> version) that would have to follow the REC (????). I do not use group with
> all (only with "sequence" and "choice" that do not imply "all" strong
> constraints - it seems for me)

Indeed those are all fine.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 14:45:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:35 GMT