- From: Kevin Braun <kbraun@obj-sys.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:43:24 -0400
- To: Robert Melskens <robert.melskens@gmail.com>
- CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
In addition to what Michael already said, here's a little additional explanation that points you toward where you run afoul of the spec... The error Xerces gives is: rcase-Recurse.2: There is not a complete functional mapping between the particles. Xerces seems to be following 2.2 at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/structures.html#cos-particle-restrict. It removes the "pointless" sequence, so that comp1A1 becomes: <xs:complexType name="complA1"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:restriction base="complA"> <xs:sequence minOccurs="0"> <xs:element name="B" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="C" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="D" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="E" minOccurs="0"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:restriction> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> However, after doing this, applying the rules for a sequence particle restricting a sequence particle (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/structures.html#rcase-Recurse) leads to the noted failure (element B would map to the original nested sequence, elements C..E don't map to anything). Kevin On 3/11/2009 4:39 AM, Robert Melskens wrote: > Hi, > > With the attached XML-Schema, a simplified version of one of our > schema's, we had some problems within XML-Spy. > The schema contains a content-model, which is judged by XML-Spy as > invalid. > I know how to solve this invalidness, but that solution conflicts with > the desired model. > > I wasn''t able to get a grip on the real source of this 'invalid' > message by XML-Spy. > Why is it invalid to have a minOccurs of 1 on the sequence element? > So I decided to try another validator, it might give me more clues. > I tried '_http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv_' enad surprisingly > the schema was judged here as valid. > > I concluded XML-Spy would probably have a bug because I put more trust > in a W3C validator. > > So I sent a bug-report to Altova. A moment ago they answered me. They > did test the schema also on a .Net and the Xerces paser and also those > parsers reported an error. > Does this mean the W3C validator has a bug? If so, can you answer the > question above. The XML-Schema recommendation doesn't help me much. > > I attached the mentioned schema. > > Greetings, > > Robert Melskens > > *Atos Origin Nederland B.V.* >
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 13:44:03 UTC