RE: Problem with .NET - Invalid particle derivation by restriction

Yes, of course - I see now.  So 2.2.2.1 might be more clear if it read:

"The particle whose term is this <sequence> has {max occurs} and {min
occurs} of 1."

Thanks,
Priscilla

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:44 PM
> To: Priscilla Walmsley
> Cc: 'Dare Obasanjo'; 'Hugh Wallis'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org; 'Rob Blake'
> Subject: Re: Problem with .NET - Invalid particle derivation 
> by restriction
> 
> 
> "Priscilla Walmsley" <priscilla@walmsley.com> writes:
> 
> > Hmmm.... I'm not sure that 2.2.2.1 is true.  The sequence 
> _itself_ has
> > min/maxOccurs of 1, but the rule says:
> >
> > "The particle within which this <sequence> appears has {max 
> occurs} and
> > {min occurs} of 1."
> >
> > The sequence in question is not within any particle, is it? 
>  If not, I
> > don't see how the above sentence could be true.
> 
> Well, the problem is interpreting the notation '<sequence>'.  I was
> interpreting it to mean the value of the {term} property of some
> Particle, and that it was that Particle which is referred to by the
> phrase "The particle within which this <sequence> appears"
> 
> Consider this case:
> 
> <sequence minOccurs="3" maxOccurs="5">
>  <element ref="peach"/>
>  <sequence>
>   <element ref="pear"/>
>   <element ref="plum"/>
>  </sequence>
> </sequence>
> 
> It's clearly the internal sequence which is pointless, right?
> 
> ht
> -- 
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, 
> University of Edinburgh
>                       Half-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 Friday, 10 October 2003 13:58:08 UTC