RE: UPA example

To add to that, in XML Schema 1.1 the UPA rule is relaxed so that if an
element can match both an element particle or a wildcard particle, the
element particle wins. So this schema will become valid.
 
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/


  _____  

From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Glavassevich
Sent: 24 June 2008 17:08
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: UPA example



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/xsde