- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:39:33 +0100
- To: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@allette.com.au>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Eddie Robertsson wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>
>
>>Just wondering how a recursive group such as:
>>
>> <xs:group name="group">
>> <xs:sequence>
>> <xs:element name="foo">
>> <xs:complexType>
>> <xs:group ref="group" minOccurs="0"/>
>> </xs:complexType>
>> </xs:element>
>> <xs:element name="bar" type="xs:token"/>
>> </xs:sequence>
>> </xs:group>
>>
>>may be redefine without confusion between the <xs:group ref="group"/>
>>meaning "extension", the <xs:group ref="group" minOccurs="0"/> meaning
>>"bogus extension" the <xs:group ref="group" minOccurs="0"/> meaning
>>"reference" ???
>>
>
> Jeez Eric, with a sentence like that I think you just qualified to be writing
> specs yourself ;-)
:)
>
> Anyway, isn't this already covered in the spec:
>
> "6 Within the [children], for each <group> the appropriate case among the
> following must be true:
> 6.1 If it has a <group> among its contents at some level the ·actual value·
> of whose ref [attribute] is the same as the ·actual value· of its own name
> attribute plus target namespace, then all of the following must be true:
> 6.1.1 It must have exactly one such group.
> ..."
>
> It seems that 6.1.1 prohibits a redefinition of your above example since it
> would have to groups among its contents at some level where the ref attribute
> is the same as its own name.
Yes, this is exactly what I meant by "confusion"! The fact to use a
reference to extend a group is ambiguous and overlaps with the "normal"
semantic of group references.
IMO, a clean derivation method should be provided for groups...
Thanks
Eric
>
--
Rendez-vous ą Paris pour le Forum XML.
http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:39:38 UTC