- From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:10:53 -0800
- To: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>, "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, Gary Robertson <gazinyork@hotmail.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> I see a orthogonality between ordering and contiguity. Could
> you make it
> implicit that <all> implies contiguity? Yeah, sure...
> sequence has to by
> definition;
Oops. I contradicted myself... sequence *doesn't* have to imply contiguity,
merely ordering. For example:
<sequence>
<a>
<b>
<sequence>
<d>
<e>
</sequence>
</sequence>
Could (doesn't, but could) allow: {<a/><d/><b/><e/>} as {a,b} and {d,e}
ordering are preserved. If you wanted them contiguous, you would have to
specify another model group with the sequences in it.
Of course, you know, the cow's already out of that barn...
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 16:12:34 UTC