- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:06:38 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5507 Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com --- Comment #4 from Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> 2009-10-08 23:06:38 --- Rgarding the example: <complexType name="upa-demo"> <sequence> <element name="a"/> <element name="a" minOccurs="0"/> </sequence> </complexType> Doesn't this bug just remind us once again that our notion of component identity is murky? Specifically, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#dcl.elt.local says: "If the <element> element information item has <complexType> or <group> as an ancestor, and the ref [attribute] is absent, and it does not have minOccurs=maxOccurs=0, then it maps both to a Particle and to a local Element Declaration which is the {term} of that Particle. " The obvious difference between the two name="a" lines is in the minOccurs, which maps to the particle, not the element declaration. That then begs the question of whether the element declaration that is the term of the respective particles is the "same" or not. Turning the argument around, the statement that "Every complex type definition defines its own local attribute and element declaration symbol spaces." can be taken is at least indirect evidence that the answer is: they are the same. In any case, this suggests another possible resolution, in addition to the one suggested by MSM. We could attempt to make clear that, at least in cases like this, all local element declaration markup in the transfer syntax that shares a compexType ancestor and that declares elements of the same expanded name does indeed map to a single element declaration. I think this would be my preferred casuistry. Noah -- 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 Thursday, 8 October 2009 23:06:42 UTC