- From: Bob Schloss <rschloss@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:43:26 -0500
- To: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
To do what you want, you should have <xsd:complexType name="ModelType"> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element ref="head" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> and extending this would be done by saying <xsd:element name="yourNewElement" substitutionGroup="head"/> [Note, head should only be used in this one place!] Were you to do <xsd:complexType name="ModelType"> <xsd:choice> <xsd:element ref="child1" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:choice> </xsd:complexType> followed by derivation (via normal extension or <redefine> extension) <xsd:complexType ... > <xsd:extension base="ModelType"> <xsd:choice> <xsd:element ref="newChild" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:choice> </xsd:extension> </xsd:complexType> the content model would be a sequence of a first choice (containing child1 0..n times) and then a second choice (containing newChild 0..n times). I do not recall exactly where the spec describes this. Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com>@w3.org on 02/12/2002 09:39:54 AM Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org To: "'Eddie Robertsson'" <erobertsson@allette.com.au>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: RE: <xsd:sequence> required? I've asked this before, but don't recall seeing an answer: Is the design pattern of an unbounded choice extensible? If I extend a type that contains an unbounded choice element and specify that the extended type also contains an unbounded choice element, would the behavior be 1) a full combination of the two sets of elements, appearing in any order, or 2) two separate choice subsets with elements in each subset appearing in any order Extensibility of this pattern could be an important design criterion. Thanks, Mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Mark Feblowitz [t] 617.715.7231 Frictionless Commerce Incorporated [f] 617.495.0188 XML Architect [e] mfeblowitz@frictionless.com 400 Technology Square, 9th Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 www.frictionless.com -----Original Message----- From: Eddie Robertsson [mailto:erobertsson@allette.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:01 AM To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: Re: <xsd:sequence> required? > What I want to be able to say with the following piece of code is that > one can use the mentioned elements any number of times and in any order. > > <xsd:complexType name="ModelType"> > <xsd:element ref="cellml:units" minOccurs="0 > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > <xsd:element ref="cellml:component" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded" /> > <xsd:element ref="cellml:group" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > <xsd:element ref="cellml:connection" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded" /> > <xsd:element ref="rdf:RDF" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> > <xsd:attribute ref="cellml:name" use="required" /> > <xsd:attribute ref="cmeta:id" use="optional" /> > </xsd:complexType> > > Since the children elements can be in any order, the <xsd:sequence> > element is not useful. Neither are the <xsd:choice> and <xsd:all>. Is > it necessary that I use one of them in this case? Yes, you always need to have one of sequence, all or choice specified. Since you want all elements to appear any number of times and in any order you can add minOccurs="0" and maxOccurs="unbounded" to the choice element itself. So, you would have: <xsd:complexType name="ModelType"> <xsd:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xsd:element ref="cellml:units" minOccurs="0 maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xsd:element ref="cellml:component" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xsd:element ref="cellml:group" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xsd:element ref="cellml:connection" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xsd:element ref="rdf:RDF" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> </xsd:choice> <xsd:attribute ref="cellml:name" use="required" /> <xsd:attribute ref="cmeta:id" use="optional" /> </xsd:complexType> Cheers, /Eddie
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:40:36 UTC