W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Extension and all-group

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 01:43:51 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C88F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, "Oleg Tkachenko" <olegt@multiconn.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

I know this rule exists but for the life of me can't find what parts of the REC spell it out. Can you give me a hand and provide a link or excerpt from the REC to back this up. We constantly get questions about this from our users and I'd like to point them to the REC to confirm my answers. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] 
	Sent: Fri 1/31/2003 2:56 AM 
	To: Oleg Tkachenko 
	Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: Extension and all-group

	Oleg Tkachenko <olegt@multiconn.com> writes:
	> Hello!
	> This question was raised at news:microsoft.public.dotnet.xml newsgroup
	> -
	> is the following schema valid? .NET gives errors, while XML Spy and
	> W3C validator say okay.
	The schema is not valid.  The derived type violates the requirement
	that the only place an 'all' group can appear is all alone as the only
	group in a type.  XSV should check for this, but doesn't [1]:
	 "<all> groups are [not] properly constrained as to how they appear in schemas"
	[1] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/xsv-status.html
	  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
	                      Half-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, 3 February 2003 06:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:59 UTC