Re: UPA example

- 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/