- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 16 May 2001 17:45:42 +0100
- To: "Tom Gaven" <tom.gaven@xmls.com>
- Cc: "Morris Matsa" <mmatsa@us.ibm.com>, "Eddie Robertsson" <eddie@allette.com.au>, "XSD" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Tom Gaven" <tom.gaven@xmls.com> writes: > This makes sense, but what would happen if the group ref had maxOccurs, > but no minOccurs? > Would the minOccurs on the group's sequence be combined with the > maxOccurs on the group ref? Whatever else we do, _that_ option is quite high cost. It's a least misleading to say "the group ref and . . . no minOccurs", in that the <group> element's 'minOccurs' attribute is declared with a default (1), so whether there's a 'minOccurs' there in the character sequence or not, there is one there in the Infoset. Removing that default just in order to address this corner case does not seem to me like a good idea. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 13:31:50 UTC