W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [xml-dev] Two Questions - on XML Schema

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:53:19 -0000
Message-ID: <000a01c643b3$2349e490$0600a8c0@RW>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

----- Original Message From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
> The current thinking, at least among many WG members, is that <all> groups
> in their current forms are not usually implemented with the sort of FSM's
> that would exhibit combinatorial explosion.  Given that all groups are
> relatively separate from <sequence> and <choice>, there are
> implementations in which simple counters can be used to ensure that the
> number of elements seen meets the constraint.
>
> There is also discussion of more general support, in which <all> can be
> mixed with <sequence> and <choice>;  in that case, we do have to be very
> careful to understand the impact on the more general FSM and on
> restriction and extension.  For those reasons, I personally am nervous
> about proposing to mix <all> with other model groups, though we have had
> requests from some users.  Support for maxOccurs>1 may well make it into
> the working drafts for Schema 1.1.

Do you have a timetable on when you will be making decisions about <all>?  I 
was contemplating doing an implementation to verify it, but won't have the 
resource for 2 or 3 week.

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
                         for XML to C++ data binding visit
                         http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
                         (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 19:53:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:54 GMT