- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:31:42 +0100
- To: "Dag Hovland" <dag.hovland@uib.no>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
I wasn't on the committee that developed XSD 1.0 (or XSD 1.1), but from other discussions on various e-mail lists I get the impression that they were concerned about the implementability of various features using finite state machines, especially without counters within states etc. I think an xs:all with unrestricted cardinalities for members gets particularly hungry for states when implemented this way, hence the restrictions. I think the feeling now is that there are other, non-state machine ways to implement validation of constructs such as xs:all with unrestricted cardinality and so the restrictions are relaxed. HTH, Pete Cordell Codalogic Ltd Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++ data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes. Visit http://www.xmldatabinding.net for more info ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dag Hovland" <dag.hovland@uib.no> To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:53 AM Subject: Motivations for restricting the "all" group >I have been trying to do some research into regular > expressions and the "all" group used in XML Schema, as > mentioned in > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-0-20010502/ > > It is clear that "all" is in some sense restricted, since it can only > combine elements, and must appear at top level. My question is, what was > the original inspiration for "all", what is the "unrestricted" form of > "all", and why was it originally restricted, in the design of XML Schema? > > Some academic authors claim that "all" is a restricted form of > "interleaving", a known operator in regular language theory, for which > the membership problem is NP-complete. But this is not clear to me, as > interleaving means that the words are shuffled in a way that does not > seem to make sense for natural languages. I believe that the "&" from > SGML is a more natural extensions, but I cannot find any reference to > the original motivation, or to the reasons for limiting "all". > > Thank you for any help, > > Dag Hovland >
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:32:37 UTC