- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:36:39 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2554 Summary: Should UPA be a model group or particle constraint? Product: XML Schema Version: 1.0/1.1 both Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: ht@w3.org ReportedBy: sandygao@ca.ibm.com QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org Currently UPA is in 3.8.6 to constraint model groups. Consider the following: <complexType> <sequence maxOccurs="2"> <element name="a"/> <element name="a" minOccurs="0"/> </sequence> </complexType> This should be invalid, because for the input <a/><a/>, we don't know which element declaration to use for the second <a/>. The content type of this complex type is a particle, whose term is a model gruop (the only model group in the content type). This model group is a sequence of 2 element declarations. It's clear that the sequence model group itself doesn't violate UPA, then how do we flag this complex type as invalid? Shouldn't UPA be defined on particles?
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 02:36:44 UTC