- From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:12:53 +0100
- To: "'Michael Kay'" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>, "'Xan Gregg'" <Xan.Gregg@jmp.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> Curiously, Saxon 8.0 reports this as ambiguous: > > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="AdminData" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > <xs:element name="AdminData" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </xs:sequence> > > but not this: > > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="AdminData" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > <xs:element ref="AdminData" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </xs:sequence> > Perhaps it's not so curious. In the second case when you hit an AdminData there is no ambiguity about which element declaration should be used to validate it. I've read the UPA definition five times and I can't work out whether the second case is supposed to be ambiguous or not - it seems to hinge on whether two particle components can have the same properties but still be distinct - but intuitively it seems reasonable to allow it. Michael Kay
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 02:13:33 UTC