- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:34:17 -0000
- To: "'Michael Kay'" <mike@saxonica.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Responding to my own post, I see that the Thompson & Tobin algorithm published at http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/XML_Europe_2003.html does not report this as a UPA violation, because the edges in the FSA graph are labelled with element declarations, rather than element particles. The change in Saxon has arisen because I am implementing the schema data model (in particular the distinction between element particles and element declarations) more faithfully. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org > [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay > Sent: 16 December 2004 00:19 > To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org > Subject: UPA violation or not? > > > Xerces reports this schema as a UPA violation, XSV reckons it > is OK. Which > is correct? > > <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> > <xs:complexType name="bar"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="pongo" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/> > <xs:element ref="pongo" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:complexType> > <xs:element name="doc" type="bar"/> > <xs:element name="pongo" type="xs:string"/> > </xs:schema> > > Saxon 8.1 reports it as ambiguous, my current build of Saxon > 8.2 doesn't (an > unintentional side-effect of an unrelated change). > > My reading of the spec is that it probably is ambiguous, but > that it really > doesn't need to be. > > Michael Kay > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 09:34:22 UTC