- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 16 Nov 2001 10:20:03 +0000
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "K.Mroczek" <kmroczek@altkom.com.pl>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com> writes: <snip/> > but what about: > > <xs:redefine schemaLocation="bar.xsd"> > <xs:group name="foo"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:sequence minOccurs="0"> > <xs:group ref="foo"/> > </xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="bar"/> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:group> > </xs:redefine> > > which is equivalent? Good point -- worth a clarification. > And even your: > > > > <xs:redefine schemaLocation="..."> > > <xs:group name="foo"> > > > <xs:choice> > > <xs:element ref="C" minOccurs="0" /> > > <xs:group ref="foo" /> > > </xs:choice> > > </xs:group> > > </xs:redefine> > > has the effect to allow a content where none of the content of "foo" is > mandatory which seems contrary to (what I have understood of) the philosophy > of the redefinition which is to avoid that the applications are "too much > surprised" by the redefinition. Also true. 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 Friday, 16 November 2001 05:19:08 UTC