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

Re: Does This Violate UPA?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 05 Nov 2002 18:16:46 +0000
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bbs53ubjl.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:

> My mistake. I meant I believe the answer is Yes. A brief distraction made me mix up the definition of particle. 
> 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: Dare Obasanjo 
> 	Sent: Tue 11/5/2002 9:58 AM 
> 	To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org 
> 	Cc: 
> 	Subject: Does This Violate UPA?
> 	
> 	
> 	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> 	<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" 
> 	elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
> 	 
> 	 <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:string" />
> 	 
> 	<xs:element name="root">
> 	 <xs:complexType>
> 	  <xs:sequence>
> 	   <xs:element ref="foo" maxOccurs="3"/>
> 	   <xs:element ref="foo" />
> 	  </xs:sequence>
> 	  </xs:complexType>
> 	 </xs:element>
> 	 
> 	</xs:schema>
> 	 
> 	I believe the answer is No but can conceive of how this might be considered a gray area. It gets much grayer if both <foo>'s are local declarations. 

Yes, it does -- how would local decl make it different?

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 Tuesday, 5 November 2002 13:16:49 GMT

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