W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2008

Re: UPA example

From: Florent Georges <lists@fgeorges.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:10:39 +0200 (CEST)
To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, 'Boris Kolpackov' <boris@codesynthesis.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <686632.57330.qm@web23005.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Pete Cordell wrote:


> Personally I think that, subject to occurrence constraints, the
> particle that is currently gobbling up input, should have
> priority (i.e. they're greedy).

  So the following, from the current example:

    <xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbound">
       <xs:element ref="elem"/>
       <xs:any namespace="##targetNamespace" maxOccurs="unbound"/>

would be valid, while a bit of an obfuscation because the maxOccurs on
the sequence won't be taken into account.  Right?

  Is the above quote what tells XML Schema 1.1?  If yes, where it is in
the WD?



Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:11:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:47 UTC