- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 28 Jun 2002 09:02:53 +0100
- To: Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com>
- Cc: James Kavanagh <jkavanagh@adeptra.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com> writes:
> The only thing I could suggest is that "patternsType" contains something
> of type "integerType", which means you could have a structure which
> looked like:
>
> <integer>
> <patterns>
> <integer>
> <patterns>
> <integer>
> ...
>
> (if "integer" was a child of "patterns"). What I do not know is whether
> or not the XSDL spec allows this, since "patterns" is a choice inside
> "integerType", meaning it may not exist.
This is a good candidate for an FAQ. Schemas with such recursive
types _are_ OK. If they don't have choice or optionality, they may be
unsatisfiable with finite documents, of course :-).
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 Friday, 28 June 2002 04:02:58 UTC