- From: Gary Robertson <gazinyork@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:55:17 -0000
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hi Henry > <snip/> > > > What is really needed is for it to be legal to write something like: > > > > <xs:all> > > <A minoccurs=0 maxoccurs=unbounded> > > <B minoccurs=1 maxoccurs=unbounded> > > <C minoccurs=2 maxoccurs=5> > > </xs:all> > > > > Although xs:nosequence might be more descriptive than xs:all. > > _One_ (not the only) reason in the way of doing this is that the WG > has found that although some people ahve said something like the above > is what they want, they turn out to mean different things by it. > > On _your_ interpretation of the above, would the following be valid: > > <C/><B/><C/> > > ? > > ht Yes, my _requirement_ is that the elements are able to occur in any order. Only the number of incidences of each is significant (the cases of min=0, max=unbounded and min=1, max=unbounded are the ones my application requires in reality). I must be being thick again because I can't see any ambiguity in the above. Could you explain please? However, rather than change the meaning of xs:all it would be more flexible to drop or loosen the usage restriction that forbids xs:all from having child compositors. My requirement could then be met by, for example: <xs:element name="Discordia"> <xs:complexType> <xs:all> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="A" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="B" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="C" minOccurs="2" maxOccurs="5"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:all> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> thanks Gaz
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 06:09:29 UTC