- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 26 Sep 2002 09:24:15 +0100
- To: "Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "Schema Interest Group" <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
"Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com> writes: > There is a difference between choice and {all, sequence} group particles > in determining whether its {content type} is empty or whether a particle > is pointless: > choice -- {particles} is empty plus its {min occurs} is 0 > {all, sequence} -- {particles} is empty > > It looks to me that the following two groups are different: > choice A -- its {minOccurs} = 0 and {particles} is empty > choice B -- its {minOccurs} = 1 and {particles} is empty > > For choice A, its {content type} is empty and it's > pointless. For choice B its {content type} is not > empty and it's not pointless because it defines a "negative > group particle" where no sequence (including empty sequence) of > element information items can be valid with respect to it. > > Is this interpretation correct? In all respects but, possibly, one. Groups don't have a {content type} property, so I'm not sure what you mean by reference to it. If you mean that a complex type definition which _has_ such a choice as its content model is emptiable, then yes, A ---> emptiable, B -x-> emptiable 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 Thursday, 26 September 2002 04:24:17 UTC