- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:49:10 +0100
- To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kay" To: "'Boris Kolpackov'" >> Yes, I also think it won't be valid unless the parser in 1.1 >> is expected to do backtracking. I am also wondering if the >> authors of this change to the spec considered how hard it >> will be to explain something like this to a user. > > I think this is a pretty unrealistic example. I think that in most > practical > cases the new rules will have much more intuitive behaviour than the old > rules. Perhaps it would be even more intuitive if backtracking were added, > but I think most WG members regard that as a bridge too far. 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 Personally I think that, subject to occurrence constraints, the particle that is currently gobbling up input, should have priority (i.e. they're greedy). That seems a lot easier to implement, it's a lot easier for schema authors/users to understand and has similarities to how regular expressions behave. I think it might give the wrong result in some situations, but I don't think it will be wrong in any more situations than the current 1.1 rules. I also think that in situations where behaviour similar to 1.1 rules is preferred the xs:any notQName attribute can come to the rescue. Regards, Pete Cordell Codalogic For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 10:50:30 UTC