- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 03 Nov 2001 11:28:44 +0000
- To: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
sandygao@ca.ibm.com writes:
> Hi all,
>
> One more question about UPA: in the definition of overlapping in appendix
> H:
>
> "They are both element declaration particles one of which is in the other's
> ·substitution group·."
>
> Shouldn't it be something like:
>
> "They are both element declaration particles one of which has the same name
> and target namespace as an element declaration in the other's substitution
> group."
>
> Consider the following declarations:
>
> <element name="e1"/>
> <element name="e2" substitutionGroup="e1"/>
>
> <choice>
> <element ref="e1"/>
> <element name="e2" form="qualified"/>
> </choice>
>
> In <choice> "e2" is not in the substitution group of "e1" (because "e2" is
> locally declared). But the above still violates UPA, because for an element
> "e2", we don't know which particle to use for validation.
Good catch, you're absolutely right -- I think that should be
considered for erratum status.
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 Saturday, 3 November 2001 06:27:56 UTC