- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 04 Apr 2000 22:03:14 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: pcpc@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
"Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org> writes:
> In a meeting here I just learned from Dave Raggett that
> it seems to be wrong to assume that XML schemas can express
> occurrence constraints on elements inside another element.
>
> This would mean that the current P3P XML Schema is wrong,
> and that facilities of XML Schema are inappropriate.
>
> P3P WG, please check this out with the XML Schema WG,
> and keep others informed.
>
> Here is some data:
>
> A P3P <policy> contains exactly one <disclosure>, at
> least one <statement>, possibly a single disputes-group,
> and possibly some extensions. The P3P schema tries to express
> this as follows
Not enough information here to know whether there's a problem or not.
Modulo stale element names, your draft says what you say above you
want, _provided_ you're happy that what you say above must occur in
the order given:
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-P3P-20000211/#Appendix_schema):
>
> <element name='policy'>
> <type>
> <attribute name='entity'>
> <datatype basetype='STRING'
> </attribute>
>
> <element ref='disclosure' minOccurs='1'/>
> <element ref='disputes-group' minOccurs='0'/>
> <element ref='statement' minOccurs='1' maxOccurs='*'/>
> <element ref='extension' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='*'/>
>
> </type>
> </element>
If what you want is arbitrary order, just what do you mean by that,
e.g. , is the following OK?
<extension>...</extension>
<statement>...</statement>
<disclosure>...</disclosure>
<statement>...</statement>
<extension>...</extension>
<statement>...</statement>
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2000 17:04:32 UTC