- From: Gary Cramblitt <garycramblitt@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:46:04 -0500
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
On 28 Mar 2002 at 14:24, dbowen@es.com wrote: > Thanks Jeni, you're great! > > >> The problem is that minOccurs and maxOccurs for <xs:element> under > >> <xs:all> have to be "0" or "1". It seems that the Schema's > >> definition of <xs:group name="allModel"> ... is the part that's > >> placing this restriction. Is there some fundamental reason why > >> <xs:all> places such restrictions on the child element's minOccurs > >> and maxOccurs? Or is there another way to define the schema to have > >> the same effect that I'm after? > > > >There's no way of expressing the constraints that you're after on a > >content model using XML Schema alone. I'm not sure about the rationale > >for this restriction, but I think it's something to do with the > >semantics of an xs:all that contains particles with a maxOccurs > >greater than one being ambiguous (does it mean that the elements of > >the same type have to be next to each other or not? - in your case > >not, in other cases it does). If I'm not mistaken, this restriction on xs:all means it is impossible to write an XML-Schema for XHTML. Try to define the <body> element for example... There is a group working on modular definitions, supposedly to permit more flexibility as the XHTML spec evolves, but I also suspect because there is no other way to do it. I'd be happy if somebody could prove me wrong. -- Gary Cramblitt garycramblitt@comcast.net
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 20:46:49 UTC