- 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