W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Who tests UPA?

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>
Message-ID: <f5bbrg6fvni.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

"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.

 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:24 UTC