- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:43:46 +0900
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "Ashok Malhotra" <petsa@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: henry@w3.org, "Michael Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@w3.org>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, Brian LaMacchia <bal@microsoft.com>, "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
At 01/01/11 16:40 -0500, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: >Hi Ashok. I don't think this would do the trick (they are all optional, >but there must be one of them because it'd be silly to have their parent >be empty), plus we couldn't meet the requirments of the SG since they are >of different types! You can still use Ashok's approach, I guess. Just make a parent type that you declare abstract and keep as general as possible (i.e. 'anything goes'). Regards, Martin. >Regardless, we'll go othe "silly" route, I just wanted to make sure I >wasn't missing some clever trick. > >At 09:31 1/11/2001 -0500, Ashok Malhotra wrote: > >>At 01/01/09 18:15 -0500, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: >> >Is there a more elegant schema representation for the semantic of, "you >> >can have a sequence of the following, and while I don't care which you >> >have (they are all optional) you must have at least one of them." >> >>I've not been following this thread closely but it seems to me that >>a substitutionGroup would provide the needed semantic. >>Create a substitutionGroup with one of the optional items as >>exemplar. Put all the other items in the substitutionGroup. >>Define the type to contain one or more or the exemplar. >> >>This design will allow multiple occurrences of one of the optional items. >>Is this a problem? > > >__ >Joseph Reagle Jr. >W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org >IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ >
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 06:08:46 UTC