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

RE: Does This Violate UPA?

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:31:49 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8040EF747@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

A local decl doesn't make it different. That was part of my "No" answer. 
 
I have a followup question involving Element Declaration Consistent. It seems to disallow 
 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" 
elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
 
<xs:element name="root">
 <xs:complexType>
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:string" >
   <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:integer" />
  </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>
 </xs:element>
 
</xs:schema>
 
yet allow 
 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" 
elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
 
<xs:element name="root">
 <xs:complexType>
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:integer" default="10" >
   <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:integer" fixed="5" />
   <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:integer" nillable="true" />
  </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>
 </xs:element>
 
</xs:schema>
 
is this by design or an oversight in the recommendation? It seems rather arbitrary to disallow one and not the other. 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tue 11/5/2002 10:16 AM 
To: Dare Obasanjo 
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Does This Violate UPA?



	"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 13:32:13 GMT

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