- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:03:58 -0700
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
A friend of mine was recently confronted with a curious claim about XSD schemas; let us call it proposition (1): ... a schema that supports id/idref use must make all attributes and elements optional... This seemed implausible to them, so they consulted me, just to make sure there was not some sub-clause of a sub-clause they had overlooked. I have assured them that unless there is a sub-clause of a sub-clause which I have also overlooked, proposition (1) is false. Now, it's not unheard of for people to make mistakes about XSD and for false statements to circulate as a result. But what puzzles me is that I can't think of any true statement about XSD that might have been misunderstood in such a way as to give rise to proposition (1). Have any readers of this list encountered this misconception before? Do you know how it arose? Have any of the various "best-practices" documents which convey advice for users of XSD suggested such a thing? Is there some design discipline for XSD which prescribes optionality for all things as the concomitant of ID/IDREF use (and if so, what sects practice that discipline)? And, of course, if you can point me to the sub-clause of a sub-clause which makes proposition (1) true, I am eager to be enlightened, even at the cost of public humiliation. Thanks. -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 01:04:29 UTC