Yes, it violates UPA. After the first occurrence of the wildcard there would be a choice between the wildcard and element particles and the two overlap in what they accept. Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org boris@codesynthesis.com wrote on 06/24/2008 10:55:03 AM: > Hi, > > Consider the following schema: > > <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > targetNamespace="test" > elementFormDefault="qualified"> > > <complexType name="AnyTargetNamespace"> > <sequence maxOccurs="unbounded"> > <element name="apple" type="string"/> > <any namespace="##targetNamespace" processContents="skip" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </sequence> > </complexType> > > </schema> > > My interpretation of the specification suggests that this schema > violates the Unique Particle Attribution constraint in that a > content like this: > > <apple/> > <apple/> > <apple/> > > Can be validated in two ways: > > <apple/> validated by element > <apple/> validated by any > <apple/> validated by any > > Or: > > <apple/> validated by element > <apple/> validated by any > <apple/> validated by element > > Does anybody think this is not the case and if so, why? > > Thanks, > Boris > > -- > Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog > Open source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd > Mobile/embedded validating XML parsing: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsdeReceived on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 16:08:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 March 2009 11:13:41 GMT