- From: Jeroen Koops <jeroen@empanda.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- cc: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Dare Obasanjo wrote: > > > > <xs:element name="..."> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:choice> > > <xs:element name="myName" type="myFirstType"/> > > <xs:element name="myName" type="mySecondType"/> > > </xs:choice> > > </xs:complexType> > > </xs:element> > > > > Nope. This is invalid. Great! (I'm trying to write a schema-validator, and this was a bit of a worry). I now see in paragraph 3.8.1 the clause which indeed explicitly disallows the above example, it says: "When two or more particles contained directly or indirectly in the {particles} of a model group have identically named element declarations as their {term}, the type definitions of those declarations must be the same. By 'indirectly' is meant particles within the {particles} of a group which is itself the {term} of a directly contained particle, and so on recursively." Does this imply that different content-models in elements with the same name is always disallowed, except when it is possible to make a distinction based on their context (I mean anywhere in a schema, not just within a <choice> or any other specific construct)? Thanks again, -- Jeroen Koops Empanda Software Development jeroen@empanda.net +31-6-24686577
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 17:49:50 UTC