W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2016

Re: a small document about XML Schema <sequence> vs <all> constructs

From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:19:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CABuuzNP5uBvSoA5W9YDDEEdjazwXtxoL3Vmpx_P0nQ-z3r1_mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com>
Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On 27 July 2016 at 19:29, David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com> wrote:

> Normally this leads to a puzzled look – why use <all/> then?
>
> * “Use <all/> when the order that the elements appear has some >semantic<
> meaning – some value-add.”
>

This point looks correct to me at an abstract level (i.e conceptually). I
like the term 'some value-add', and I do agree to this terminology. But,
isn't imposing only one order on XML elements to be validated with
<sequence>, hasn't got a semantic meaning? I think it does.


>
>
> At some point <all/> was arguably more computationally expensive than
> <sequence/> - not sure about that any more –
>

This is true. I think, as the number of XML elements (which are sibling to
each order) grow more, this point is even truer I think. But it would also
depend on the implementation strategies used by the XML Schema processor.

>
>


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2016 04:50:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:16:11 UTC