- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 26 Sep 2002 18:10:44 +0100
- To: "Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com> writes: > My main question is how useful choice B is? Is it main use > is like what I said -- "negative particle"? Yes, but although that's the only _use_ one can imagine, that's not why we allowed it -- rather because it seemed on balance better to keep all the groups consistent, and allow no particles, than to special-case <choice>. The analogy I usually refer to is that and() (that is, boolean 'and', no arguments) is always true, but or() is always false. Compare <sequence/> and <choice/>. > > 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 > > Yes, this is what I mean. Good, then I think that's all clarified. 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 13:10:45 UTC