- From: <MarkH@i2.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:15:44 -0000
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] > Forget that, then. In the XML Schema context, here's the relevant > text [1]: > > "If the {particles} [of a model group] contains, either directly, > indirectly (that is, within the {particles} of a contained model > group, recursively) or implicitly two or more element declaration > particles with the same {name} and {target namespace}, all their > {type definition}s must be the same." > > A model group is (the schema component corresponding to) a <choice>, > <all> or <sequence>. > > Hope this helps Yes, thanks. And that appears to rule it out throughout a document since all elements in a document will always share a common model group at the top of the hierarchy? On my travels I read the bit about the scope under "definition of an element" [2] - which indeed says that the scope is indeed a content model. If you then look up content model you find that A particle can be used in a complex type definition to constrain the validation of the [children] of an element information item; such a particle is called a content model. [3] And you'll be under the impression that the scope can be restricted to allow multiple elements with same name, different type, so long as the scope is restricted to a "particle" (such as <sequence>). And then (with Henry's help) you find the restriction which precludes this [1]!!! Life is full of disappointments that make it interesting!! :-) Mark -- Mark Hughes Agile HTML Editor http://www.agilic.com PS ht - intelligence not insulted - in tact and whirring away along with good humour. have a brill day! [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-element-consistent [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Element_Declaration_details [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-contentModel)
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2001 07:22:51 UTC