- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:48:44 +0100
- To: "'Shlomo Yona'" <S.Yona@F5.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001201c78079$80df6270$4b0f210a@turtle>
Once I fix your typographical quotation marks to turn them into ASCII
quotation marks, Saxon reports:
Error at xsd:schema on line 1 of file:/c:/temp/test.xsd:
The zero-length string is not a legal namespace URI
Error at xsd:element on line 11 of file:/c:/temp/test.xsd:
Cannot reference schema components in namespace foo as it has not been
imported
(more of the same)
Error at xsd:all on line 25 of file:/c:/temp/test.xsd:
Element <xsd:all> is not allowed as a child of <xsd:sequence>
Error at xsd:all on line 25 of file:/c:/temp/test.xsd:
Within <xs:all>, an <xs:element> must have @maxOccurs equal to 0 or 1
Error at xsd:all on line 25 of file:/c:/temp/test.xsd:
Within <xs:all>, an <xs:element> must have @maxOccurs equal to 0 or 1
When I fix these problems Saxon actually reports both your schema and the
instance as valid. This is because Saxon doesn't detect a UPA in the
situation where you have two element particles that both refer to the same
element declaration - if Saxon can determine unambiguously which element
declaration an element refers to, it doesn't report any ambiguity. A known
minor departure from the spec.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
_____
From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Shlomo Yona
Sent: 16 April 2007 08:57
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Determinization in case of ambiguity or Should XML validators
report on schemas that violate the UPA constraint?
Hello,
In the following example schema the element <b/> can appear either as part
of a sequence model group or as part of a choice model group or as an all
model group.
This means that the instance does not follow the Unique Particle Attribution
Constraint (see: "Section 3.8.6: Constraints on Model Group Schema
Components " and Appendix H in "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second
Edition, W3C Proposed Edited Recommendation").
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace=""
xmlns="foo">
<xsd:element name="a">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="2">
<xsd:sequence minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="2">
<xsd:element
ref="b" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
<xsd:element
ref="c" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:choice minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="2">
<xsd:element
ref="b" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
<xsd:element
ref="d" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
</xsd:choice>
<xsd:all minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:element
ref="e" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
<xsd:element
ref="b" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
</xsd:all>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="b">
<xsd:complexType/>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="c">
<xsd:complexType/>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="d">
<xsd:complexType/>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="e">
<xsd:complexType/>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:schema>
My question is: should the following example be valid against the schema or
not valid?
<a>
<b/><c/><b/>
</a>
I see that different XML validators behave differently on this example.
However, I did not see them report an error in the schema.
Now, please consider the following schema:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
targetNamespace="bar" xmlns="foo">
<xsd:element name="a">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:sequence minOccurs="0">
<xsd:element
name="b">
<xsd:complexType/>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:schema>
Instance:
<a/>
Is it valid?
See, the element b might not appear and that's OK if you ask the inner
sequence but the outer sequence needs to "happen" once (the minOccurs="1" is
implied).
So, how should I read this? Is the above single <a/> element instance valid
or not with this schema? Is such a schema legal or not? If the schema is not
legal, must a schema processor report an error?
Thanks.
Shlomo.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 22:50:05 UTC