- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:57 +0100
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Cc: "'Xan Gregg'" <Xan.Gregg@jmp.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk> writes: >> <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. XSV rules this one out, but I agree it's a point on which reasonable people might differ. Component identity is an issue the XML Schema WG hopes to clean up considerably in XML Schema 1.1. 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@inf.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, 16 September 2004 08:47:01 UTC