- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:06:49 +0100
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Cc: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Original Message From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" > On 25 Jun 2008, at 04:49 , Pete Cordell wrote: > > ... > > So I take it that under the XSD 1.1 rules, the instance would be valid > > and have particle assigment corresponding to: > > > > <apple/> validated by element > > <apple/> validated by any > > <apple/> validated by any > > > > Rather than: > > > > <apple/> validated by element > > <apple/> validated by any > > <apple/> validated by element > > No, I don't think so. I have to confess that while I noticed that the first pass through the sequence would require a match to the xs:any, I didn't carry on the reasoning and consider that on the second pass a match was also required and hence the instance was a little short. Similarly I didn't realise how the RE backtracking that Boris mentioned was relevant and concluded he was using the term loosely. I can now see how it related. (I could argue that I only considered the above instances to be fragments of a larger instances, but can't :-) I think the important thing for me is that, having fixed the length of the instance, the following is the association: <apple/> validated by element <apple/> validated by any <apple/> validated by element <apple/> validated by any and not: <apple/> validated by element <apple/> validated by any <apple/> validated by any <apple/> validated by any Thanks, Pete Cordell Codalogic For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 21:12:37 UTC