W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Redefinition of group, who's correct

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:27:56 -0600
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, XMLSchema-dev <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <95940D56-C775-4E9F-A74E-6D07D6ECFFB3@blackmesatech.com>
To: Pierre Attar <pat@tireme.fr>

On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:49 AM, Pierre Attar wrote:

> 
> 
> When trying to write this schema, my assumption was a little bit DTD like interpretation : the first defininition is the right one.


That's true for entity and attribute declarations in DTDs, but not for 
element declarations (which lead to errors when duplicated) or 
attribute-list declarations (which accumulate).

An idea very similar to your operating assumption was in fact 
proposed (a sort of schema-component search path), but I am
ashamed to relate that it was not taken very seriously and 
was not adopted.  The XSD rules for include and import might 
have been much easier to understand (and thus easier to write 
without contradictions) has the WG adopted it.  But the 
majority of the WG thought that it would be too error-prone.

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************
Received on Sunday, 31 March 2013 22:28:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 22:28:25 UTC