- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:40:39 +0100
- To: <lists@fgeorges.org>, "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Original Message From: "Florent Georges">
Hi Florent,
>> 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"/>
> </xs:sequence>
>
> would be valid, while a bit of an obfuscation because the maxOccurs on
> the sequence won't be taken into account. Right?
That's what I'd propose. If you wanted to allow the repeating sequence to
take effect, then you'd change it to:
<xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbound">
<xs:element ref="elem"/>
<xs:any namespace="##targetNamespace" notQName="elem"
maxOccurs="unbound"/>
</xs:sequence>
It's not quite the same as the current XSD 1.1 rules because as I understand
it XSD 1.1 would use the following association:
<elem/> -> xs:element elem
<elem/> -> xs:any
<elem/> -> xs:element elem
<elem/> -> xs:any
etc.
Whereas the revised schema form would mean that the above input would be
invalid due to the absence of a minOccurs in the xs:any.
However, the above particle assignment just doesn't seem particularly
sensible to me, and I'd rather have simple rules than accommodate such odd
instances.
> Is the above quote what tells XML Schema 1.1? If yes, where it is in
> the WD?
Not yet!
Regards,
Pete Cordell
Codalogic
For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:41:23 UTC