- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:39:36 +0000
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk ((Henry S. Thompson))
- CC: "Gary Robertson" <gazinyork@hotmail.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Hi Henry,
> 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.
Couldn't you achieve that strictness by defining xs:all to (a) accept
its contents in any order and (b) contain other model groups? If
someone wanted all the Cs to be grouped together, they could do:
<xs:all>
<xs:element ref="B" />
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="C" maxOccurs="5" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:all>
Or is the problem that the sequence in the above would be ignored
as "pointless" according to the current rules?
Cheers,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 07:39:40 UTC