W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2004

Re: UPA violation or not?

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:50:28 -0500
To: Morris Matsa <mmatsa@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF353301C2.94A294D8-ON85256F6C.004C1000@lotus.com>

I'm a little confused about this question.  Not only does it look like a 
UPA violation, it looks a little bit like the simple examples of UPA 
violations that are used to introduce the topic.  In DTD terms, this is 
like (pongo?, pongo?),  except that since we have counting it's (pongo[0-2], pongo[0-2]). 

A single pongo matches either the first or the second particle.  The 
attribution to particles is thus ambiguous for at least one instance. QED.

Is there a subtlety in the example that I am missing?  It's true that the 
two particles have the same value for {term}, but that doesn't make them 
the same particle.  Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 14:01:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:48 GMT