- From: Brian Bonner <bkbonner@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:07:41 -0500
- To: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
George, thanks for the tip, I'm assuming that the (a|b|c)+ is the example that you gave me. It seemed to do the trick. I will also try Vegard's idea to see if that solves the problem. Thanks. On 1/6/06, George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Then a model like (a|b|c)+ looks like exactly what want. > > Best Regards, > George > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > George Cristian Bina > <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger > http://www.oxygenxml.com > > > Brian Bonner wrote: > > George, Michael, thanks. > > > > I'm sorry I wasn't complete. Yes, multiple occurrences of a, b and c > > are allowed. That's a critical piece I left out. > > > > > > So, someone could create: > > > > <options> > > <a/> > > </options> > > > > <options> > > <a/> > > <b/> > > </options> > > > > <options> > > <b/> > > </options> > > > > <options> > > <a/> > > <b/> > > <c/> > > </options> > > > > and several others, > > > > but not: > > > > <options/> > > > > So each of them are optional, but *at least* one of them must be > > specified and multiple can be specified at once. > > > > I think George's model which imposes ordering on the elements might do > > the trick. I'll give that a shot. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Brian >
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 05:07:55 UTC