- 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