Re: Rationale for restricted uses of "all"

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