Re: A Vote for XSD changes

Jeff Reed wrote: 

>  To Whom It May Concern:
>  
> I found an excerpt from http://www.xml.

> com/lpt/a/2000/11/29/schemas/part1.html that is interesting:
> “In order to avoid combinations that could become ambiguous or 
> too complex to be solved by W3C XML Schema tools, a set of 
> restrictions has been added to the xs:all particle:
> they can appear only as a unique child at the top of a content model
> and their children can be only xs:element definitions or 
> references and cannot have a cardinality greater than one.”
> My company needs the ability to designate minOccurs and 
> maxOccurs to elements while still maintaining the ability to 
> have them in any order.

I think you'll be glad to know that just this capability is under serious 
consideration for the XML Schema 1.1.  Thank you for sending along your 
comment. 

Actually there's one clarification that would be helpful.  Of those who 
have requested maxOccurs>1 for <xsd:all>  some seem to want the elements 
to be accepted in any order, and some seem to want all the N elements of a 
given name to occur contiguously.  Am I correct that you want to allow for 
full interleaving, with elements freely mixed, as long as the total count 
of each named element is within the designated min/max?  Thanks.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 19:34:14 UTC