- 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