- From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:50:33 -0800
- To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, Gary Robertson <gazinyork@hotmail.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> > It seems like I need a third content model group type: > > > > <all> > > <element name="A"/> > > <contiguous> > > <all> > > <element name="B"/> > > <element name="C"/> > > </all> > > </contiguous> > > </all> > > Wouldn't a nested xs:all do the job in this case, if that were > allowed? I see a orthogonality between ordering and contiguity. Could you make it implicit that <all> implies contiguity? Yeah, sure... sequence has to by definition; but <all> doesn't *necessarily* have to. Neither do occurrence constraints necessarily have to imply contiguity in an <all> model context (Gary Robertson first noted this). I could be nitpicking here, but isn't that what specs are all about? :0)
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 15:52:18 UTC