W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2003

RE: allowing zero to unbounded elements in any order?

From: Scott, Michael Gordon <Michael.Gordon.Scott@kla-tencor.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:11:28 -0800
Message-ID: <4D831CAE736A2741B4513957197C9AEB02FA0C58@CA1XPR10>
To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "Scott, Michael Gordon" <Michael.Gordon.Scott@kla-tencor.com>
Cc: Sam Carleton <sam@linux-info.net>, xmlschema-dev <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>


I was afraid of that.  Thanks for all your insight.  It's been extremely
helpful, and very educational.  I'll start using <xs:*> instead of <xsd:*>.
I've seen both used in the MSMXL Parser SDK (which I only use for syntax


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:59 AM
To:	Scott, Michael Gordon
Cc:	Sam Carleton; xmlschema-dev
Subject:	Re: allowing zero to unbounded elements in any order?

Hi Michael,

> Actually, NumWafers and Wafers are mandatory, they just want them in
> any order. It's everything in :
>         <xsd:extension base="Type_ToolLotSummary">
> The Type_ToolLotSummary, which is above <xs:all> that is optional
> (everyting), and also needed to be in any order.

I'm sorry, I overlooked the fact that you were extending the type.
<xs:all> can't be used in that context because when you extend a type
you effectively create a sequence of the content from the base type
followed by the content from the extension, and <xs:all> isn't allowed
within a sequence. There's no way to build a type by extension and
allow all the elements (from both the base type and the extension) to
be present in any order. Sorry that I didn't spot that sooner.

> Dumb question : Is <xs:???> and <xsd:???> the same thing?  

Yes; I tend to use <xs:*> because that's what's used in the XML Schema
Rec, and because it's shorter.



Jeni Tennison
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 13:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:09 UTC