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.

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

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