- From: Josef Dietl <josef@mozquito.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:41:06 +0200
- To: Jérôme Nègre <jerome.negre@ecl2000.ec-lyon.fr>, <www-forms@w3.org>
Hi Jérome,
not being a schema guru myself, I have a different reading of the Schema
spec:
According to XML Schema 1 (Structures), 3.8.2 (what you quoted), it is
legal to have a group inside a sequence (my appologies for the notation,
it's meant to be read by humans :-):
<sequence
[...]
Content: (annotation?, (element | group | choice | sequence | any)*)
^^^^^
</sequence>
And according to 3.7.2 it is legal to have "all" inside group:
<group
[...]
Content: (annotation?, (all | choice | sequence))
^^^
</group>
You are right, effectively we are building something that wasn't
possible if "written out" - but as so often in computer sciences, one
level of indirection solves every problem.
Josef
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jérôme Nègre [mailto:jerome.negre@ecl2000.ec-lyon.fr]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: Strange construction in XForms schema
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm a bit confused by the XForms schema.
>
> The selectOne element is defined as follow:
>
> <xsd:element name="selectOne">
> <xsd:complexType>
> <xsd:sequence>
> <xsd:group ref="xform:commonUIChildren"/>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:choices"/>
> </xsd:sequence>
> <xsd:attribute name="id" type="xsd:ID" use="optional"/>
> <xsd:attributeGroup ref="xform:bindFirstAttributes"/>
> <xsd:attributeGroup ref="xform:commonUIAttributes"/>
> <xsd:attribute name="selectUI" type="xform:selectUIType"
> use="optional"/>
> </xsd:complexType>
> </xsd:element>
>
> The definition of commonUIChildren is:
>
> <xsd:group name="commonUIChildren">
> <xsd:all>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:caption"/>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:help" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:hint" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:alert" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:action" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="xform:extension" minOccurs="0"/>
> </xsd:all>
> </xsd:group>
>
>
> So the final model is:
>
> <sequence>
> <all>
> ...
> </all>
> ...
> </sequence>
>
> According to Schema Structure 3.8.2, this seems to be an
> invalid construct.
>
> Since I'm far from being a Schema guru, I'd really appreciate
> opinions from
> the list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jérôme Nègre
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 08:41:38 UTC