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

Re: infinite loop

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:27:00 +0000
Message-ID: <5221475239.20030109152700@jenitennison.com>
To: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@defined.net>
CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org

Hi Jeff,

>> There's nothing to stop you from creating these schemas, though of
>> course you won't be able to write any documents that are valid
>> against it.
>
> Does the Particle Emptiable constraint [1] in 3.9.6 come into play
> here? It seems that the declaration is in fact declaring particles
> and the constraint says that it must be emptiable. The minimum
> effective total range [2] for Jeni's example is > 0. the Particle
> Emptiable is explicitly referenced from the element validity
> assessment section for mixed declarations (which Oliver's example
> was...) but as Jeni pointed out his declaration was emptiable
> because of the minOccurs = 0 on the choice. Now, that said, I don't
> know of any editor that enforces that rule...

The Particle Emptiable constraint mainly comes into play when checking
whether a particular derivation by restriction is OK and, as you point
out, when checking whether it's legal to specify the default value for
an element (it's only legal if the type of the element is simple or if
it's mixed and emptiable).

None of this (as far as I can tell) makes any difference to whether a
recursive standalone type definition is legal or not, so I don't think
that Particle Emptiable comes into play here. I may have missed
something though.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 10:27:13 GMT

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