- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 05 Nov 2002 18:16:46 +0000
- To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:
> My mistake. I meant I believe the answer is Yes. A brief distraction made me mix up the definition of particle.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo
> Sent: Tue 11/5/2002 9:58 AM
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Cc:
> Subject: Does This Violate UPA?
>
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
>
> <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:string" />
>
> <xs:element name="root">
> <xs:complexType>
> <xs:sequence>
> <xs:element ref="foo" maxOccurs="3"/>
> <xs:element ref="foo" />
> </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
>
> </xs:schema>
>
> I believe the answer is No but can conceive of how this might be considered a gray area. It gets much grayer if both <foo>'s are local declarations.
Yes, it does -- how would local decl make it different?
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 Tuesday, 5 November 2002 13:16:49 UTC