W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2007

RE: Schema issue: Order dependence of submission child elements

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF4035B1830@usa7061ms01.na.xerox.net>
To: <ebruchez@orbeon.com>, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>

I raised the issue again at the Amsterdam F2F and we decided to stay
with XML Schema for XForms 1.1.
For XForms 1.2/2.0 though we should consider both allowing RNG to be
used in the model and describing XForms itself using RNG.
Micah Dubinko did an RNG for XForms 1.0, and I've updated it since, but
haven't published it again.  I should get around to it though!

P.S. Did you see this, which I found about via Robin Cover's newsletter:
Ten Reasons to Model XML with RELAX NG , Not W3C XML Schema
Alex Brown, Griffin Brown Weblog

-----Original Message-----
From: public-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-forms-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Erik Bruchez
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:13 AM
To: Forms WG (new)
Subject: Re: Schema issue: Order dependence of submission child elements

I don't have a solution, not being an absolute schema specialist, but it

always feels good to point out that with Relax NG, this is extremely 
easy to do and you don't even have to look up a tutorial or a spec! It 
would look like this and be immediately understandable by even somebody 
who has never written any Relax NG:

         <element name="resource">...</element>
         <element name="method">...</element>
         <element name="header">...</element>


John Boyer wrote:
> The issue of ordered children of submission came up on the Wednesday 
> telecon.
> On the telecon it was stated that it was hard in XML schema to specify

> child elements that were both optional and in a required order.
> I preserved this aspect of submission in the current editor's draft 
> because I do not understand why it is hard, whereas I can easily see
> being harder to write a schema that says the child is optional but
> appear anywhere in the list of child elements.  It is easy to see how
> do it if the schema also allows the child to appear any number of
> but this is not what we want.
> Isn't it just a case of saying that the submission has a resource 
> element with minoccurs=0 then a method element with minoccurs=0 then a

> header element with minoccurs=0 and maxoccurs=unbounded?
> Is there an easy way to say "In any order, one or zero resource plus
> or zero method plus zero or more header"?  
> Cheers,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer

Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 17:37:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:52 UTC