- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 30 Dec 2002 19:45:38 +0000
- To: Herve Verjus <herve.verjus@esia.univ-savoie.fr>
- Cc: xmlschema <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Herve Verjus <herve.verjus@esia.univ-savoie.fr> writes: > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > > eumH. Where did you find these constraints ????? I defined an XML Schema > > > where 1) 2) and 4) are violated and the schema was validated (????) > > > > In the REC [1]: > > > > * (all) . . . In this case, to reduce implementation complexity, > > {particles} is restricted to contain local and top-level element > > declarations only, with {min occurs}=0 or 1, {max occurs}=1. > > OK. You're right. But i used group such as: > > <group name="1" > > <choice> > <group ref="2"/> > ... > </choice> > </group> > > ... > > <group name="2"> > <sequence> > <group ref="3" minOccurs=0 maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > <element...../> > </sequence> > </group> > > ...etc. > > I validate all my XML Schemas using IBM WebSphere 5 validator (the latest > version) that would have to follow the REC (????). I do not use group with > all (only with "sequence" and "choice" that do not imply "all" strong > constraints - it seems for me) Indeed those are all fine. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 14:45:35 UTC