- From: Frédéric Jaouën <Frederic.Jaouen@accovia.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@allette.com.au>
- CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3D6CC2EE.A4F1B527@accovia.com>
Hi Eddie, My type "S" is just an xs:string and the "groupB" looks like "groupA" with different elements (the problem is not on that side but more with the minOccurs). My problem is with a product we have bought helping us to generate Java code based on our schemas. This product generate a function to validate if the XML file is valid. The problem is that if I have no element in my "groupA" (since they are all optional) their API got a problem when I call their validation function because they assume (since I have no minOccurs specified to the reference, like xs:group ref="groupA" minOccurs="0") that the minOccurs is "1" (default) and during their validation they have probably initiate a kind of pointer on nothing since I have not specify any elements in my "groupA" and they return an error. To solve my problem they suggest me to add a minOccurs="0" (which make sense) but for some reason I do not want to do that since my schema is valid (what I try to be sure). They argue that their comprehension of the W3C is correct and they do not want to correct what I call a bug, but I guess they are wrong. Also I am using the XML Spy editor which includes a Microsoft XML parser (MSXML 4.0) and I have no error when I validate my schema. I hope to be clear enough ! Thanks again, Frédéric Jaouën Eddie Robertsson wrote: > Hi, > > > I have define a group "groupA" which contains 3 optional elements. > > > > Is that correct to make a reference without specifying a minOccurs="0" > > in my definition of "testMin" element even though all elements in > > "groupA" are all optional ? > > > > Even though it is probably not very nice, I understand in the W3C that > > it can be done and I should be able to validate it ! > > > > RIGHT ??? > > > I guess this depends on if your base type "S" and the "groupB" are valid > but otherwise I don't see any problems with your schema. What errors are > you getting? > One problem could be that your groupB defines the same elements as > groupA which would create an ambigous content model since all your > elements in groupA are optional. > > Cheers, > /Eddie > > > <xs:group name="*groupA*"> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:element name="*A*" minOccurs="0"> > > <xs:simpleType> > > <xs:restriction base="S"> > > <xs:maxLength value="64"/> > > </xs:restriction> > > </xs:simpleType> > > </xs:element> > > <xs:element name="*B*" minOccurs="0"> > > <xs:simpleType> > > <xs:restriction base="S"> > > <xs:maxLength value="32"/> > > </xs:restriction> > > </xs:simpleType> > > </xs:element> > > <xs:element name="*C*" minOccurs="0"> > > <xs:simpleType> > > <xs:restriction base="S"> > > <xs:maxLength value="32"/> > > </xs:restriction> > > </xs:simpleType> > > </xs:element> > > </xs:sequence> > > </xs:group> > > > > <xs:element name="*testMin*"> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:group ref="groupA"/> > > <xs:group ref="groupB"/> > > </xs:sequence> > > </xs:complexType> > > </xs:element> > > > > "groupB" maybe anything. > > > > Thanks ! > > > > Frédéric Jaouën > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 11:25:39 UTC