- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 21 Nov 2001 11:45:43 +0000
- To: "Gary Robertson" <gazinyork@hotmail.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Gary Robertson" <gazinyork@hotmail.com> writes: > 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). That's actually an important observation -- it's in part the interaction with numeric maxOccurs and >1 minOccurs that cause implementation difficulties. > I must be being thick again because I can't see any ambiguity in the > above. Could you explain please? The stricter interpretation is that the same-named elements must occur adjacent to one another, so the above would be invalid, but e.g. <C/><C/><B/> or <B/><C/><C/> would be OK. 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 Wednesday, 21 November 2001 06:44:42 UTC