Re: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards

Original Message From: <noah_mendelsohn@us....>

> I'm feeling dense.  Can you show an example of instance having at least
> one element that would match more than one of the wildcards?

Ah - I'm afraid the density is not in your hemisphere!!!  You're right, it 
is not a UPA conflict.

However, I think suggested technique to add the <middle> name extension 
involves an insiders' trick, and I don't think that is good.

So I still think conflicting wildcards should be allowed.

Thanks,

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <noah_mendelsohn@...>
To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards


>
> Pete Cordell writes:
>
>> Replacing the xs:anys with xs:element declarations, UPAC wise I don't
>> think the following would be legal:
>>
>>     <xs:sequence>
>>       <xs:element name="given" type="xs:string"/>
>>       <xs:element name="any" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>>       <xs:sequence minOccurs="0">
>>           <xs:element name="middle" type="xs:string" />
>>           <xs:element name="any" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>>       </xs:sequence>
>>       <xs:element name="family" type="xs:string"/>
>>     </xs:sequence>
>
> I'm feeling dense.  Can you show an example of instance having at least
> one element that would match more than one of the wildcards?   I think
> that's what you have to demonstrate to show that this violates UPA, given
> the new semantics for wildcard matching in Schema 1.1.   What am I
> missing?  I don't see why this violates UPC.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 12:12:08 UTC