- From: Jeroen Koops <jeroen@empanda.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- cc: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> >
> > <xs:element name="...">
> > <xs:complexType>
> > <xs:choice>
> > <xs:element name="myName" type="myFirstType"/>
> > <xs:element name="myName" type="mySecondType"/>
> > </xs:choice>
> > </xs:complexType>
> > </xs:element>
> >
>
> Nope. This is invalid.
Great! (I'm trying to write a schema-validator, and this was a bit of a
worry). I now see in paragraph 3.8.1 the clause which indeed explicitly
disallows the above example, it says:
"When two or more particles contained directly or indirectly in the
{particles} of a model group have identically named element declarations
as their {term}, the type definitions of those declarations must be the
same. By 'indirectly' is meant particles within the {particles} of a
group which is itself the {term} of a directly contained particle, and so
on recursively."
Does this imply that different content-models in elements with the same
name is always disallowed, except when it is possible to make a
distinction based on their context (I mean anywhere in a schema, not just
within a <choice> or any other specific construct)?
Thanks again,
--
Jeroen Koops
Empanda Software Development
jeroen@empanda.net
+31-6-24686577
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 17:49:50 UTC