- From: Jaikiran <jai_forums2005@yahoo.co.in>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:17:59 -0800 (PST)
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Kevin Braun wrote: > > On 12/28/2009 9:28 AM, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> (red | blue)* (dark-red | dark-blue)* > > What you actually have is: > (red | blue)+ (dark-red | dark-blue)+ > > Your choice groups don't have minOccurs=0. > Hmm, i apparently misunderstood the cardinality of "choice". I was referring to this article http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/srivastava_structures.html which says: " Choice - (a | b)* - means that from the set of child elements declared within the choice model group exactly one element must occur in the corresponding XML-instance. The cardinality of a choice model group can range from 0 to unbounded. A choice model group can futher contain a sequence or a choice model group recursively." It's the (a | b) * which misled me. Kevin Braun wrote: > > If you are after (red | blue | dark-red | dark-blue)+, you aren't going > to achieve it the way you are going. Walmsley suggests using > substitution groups to extend choice groups (see 19.5.2 Extensions for > Choice Groups, in Definitive XML Schema). You might take a look at that > approach and see if it meets your needs. > Thanks Kevin, looking forward to get a copy of that one. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Extending-%22choice%22-model-group-in-a-xsd-schema-tp26967149p27141748.html Sent from the w3.org - xmlschema-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 09:18:28 UTC