- From: Jun Wang <t-junw@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:17:14 -0700
- To: <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, "Aung Aung" <aaung@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DD1941DB0CCC20499A67B59B154C6860022A1427@red-msg-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Hi Henry, Could you give out some comments according to some skipped parts in Aung's emails? Part I : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aung: >> B: (this is what you and Eric come agreeement on how it should work, >> if that is the case, how do you defind the scopeof >> the key 'B'? it cannot be all the way to the root element, can it? ) >> <root> <element name="a"> >> <keyref refer="B"> >> <element name="b"> >> <key name="B"> >> </element> >> </element> >> </root> Priscilla: >The scope of the key 'B' is the element 'b'. All values of the field(s) have to be unique within an instance of 'b'. Aung: 1. If scope of the key 'B' is the element 'b', then how can the <keyref refer="B">, which is outside of scope of element 'b', see the <key name="B"> ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have the same question as Aung. And if you can give out some specific example or issue in Databases area which brings you to think IDConstraint should be implemented this way, our understanding will be even clearer... Part II: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aung: >> How about this: should this work? (how/why?) >> C: >> <root> >> <element name="a"> >> <key name="A"> >> </element> >> <element name="b"> >> <keyref refer="A"> >> </element> >> </root> Priscilla: > No, because the key and keyref have to be defined in the same element, or the key has to be defined in a child element. Neither is the case here. Aung: OK, simply put, we agree with 2 easy cases, lets put it here ... case 2. if key and keyref are declared in different scope it, should fail. <r> <a> key=1 </a> <b> keyref=1 </b> </r> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just try to understand the point clear: I think the declaration (schema) above has nothing wrong, because maybe you have another element "c" which has child element or is substitute group as element "a" or "b", and make them suddenly conformance to the scope requirement of key/keyref, so there might exist instance (xml) which is valid. In anther word, Aung's xml file (case 2) is definitely invalid, since keyref can't find any key in scope, but the schema is still valid. Do you agree with me? Or what's your opinion upon this? Many thanks, Jun
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 14:17:49 UTC