W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2008

Re: UPA example

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:06:49 +0100
Message-ID: <001801c8dbbf$13a6e3c0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

- Original Message From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen"

> On 25 Jun 2008, at 04:49 , Pete Cordell wrote:
> > ...
> > So I take it that under the XSD 1.1 rules, the instance would be  valid 
> > and have particle assigment corresponding to:
> >
> > <apple/> validated by element
> > <apple/> validated by any
> > <apple/> validated by any
> >
> > Rather than:
> >
> > <apple/> validated by element
> > <apple/> validated by any
> > <apple/> validated by element
>
> No, I don't think so.

I have to confess that while I noticed that the first pass through the 
sequence would require a match to the xs:any, I didn't carry on the 
reasoning and consider that on the second pass a match was also required and 
hence the instance was a little short.  Similarly I didn't realise how the 
RE backtracking that Boris mentioned was relevant and concluded he was using 
the term loosely.  I can now see how it related.  (I could argue that I only 
considered the above instances to be fragments of a larger instances, but 
can't :-)

I think the important thing for me is that, having fixed the length of the 
instance, the following is the association:

<apple/> validated by element
<apple/> validated by any
<apple/> validated by element
<apple/> validated by any

and not:

<apple/> validated by element
<apple/> validated by any
<apple/> validated by any
<apple/> validated by any

Thanks,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic
For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 21:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:05 GMT