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

Re: UPA example

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:40:39 +0100
Message-ID: <000801c8d6c0$ada3b0b0$ea00a8c0@Codalogic>
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" 

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

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 

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

Not yet!


Pete Cordell
For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:41:23 UTC

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