- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:58:22 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6202 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-11-05 11:58:21 --- It might also be worth observing that although the XML mapping rules never generate a model group whose {compositor} is *all* and whose {particles} is empty, the schema component model allows such a model group to exist. It generally seems a bad idea to allow components to exist for which there is no XML representation. (HT has pointed out another case, the component model does not prevent an *all* group containing particles other than element particles and wildcard particles.) On a related point, a singleton *sequence* and a singleton *all* model group are equivalent from the point of view of validation, and from the point of view of the rules on valid restriction; but they are not equivalent when it comes to derivation by extension. (If operator syntax is used, as in (A,B) for sequence or (A&B) for interleave, it becomes clear that for singleton groups there should be no distinction.) Should we make them equivalent in the component model, or at least allow both to be extended in the same ways? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:58:31 UTC