[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] <all> and minOccurs="0" Problem
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: Radek Wisniewski <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:18:53 +0100
Radek Wisniewski <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 14 Sep 2001, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > Eddie <email@example.com> writes:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Radek Wisniewski [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:00 AM
> > > > > To: Martin Gudgin
> > > > > Cc: Radek Wisniewski; email@example.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] <all> and minOccurs="0" Problem
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it works fine. But the question remains unanswered: What is the sence
> > > > > of <all minOccurs="0"> attribute?
> > > > > What interesting, I can't deklare such en value in any way because:
> > > > > 1) under <complexType>, element <all> must have both attributes minOccurs
> > > > > and maxOccurs set to 1
> > >
> > > No, the entire <xs:all> group can be optional as well, i.e allowed values for
> > > minOccurs on the xs:all element itself is 0 or 1.
> > Eddie is correct -- the XML Schema WG has agreed a correction here, as
> > two different parts of the REC contradict each other on this point,
> > but the resolution will be that 0 or 1 is allowed.
> OK, is allowed in <all> definition, but if i declare:
> <xs:element name="person">
> <xs:all minOccurs="0">
> <xs:element name="vorname"/>
> <xs:element name="name"/>
> Xerces claims: Error: cos-all-limited.1.2: The minOccurs attribute of a
> mod el group with "all" compositor that is part of a pair that is the
> content type of a complex type definition must have the value one.
> The value "0" is incorrect.
> And has right, look at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-all-limited
As I said, the spec. is self-contradictory -- the schema for schemas
allows 0 in this case. The WG agreed the contradiction should be
resolved in favour of the sForS and against cos-all-limited, but
Xerces is not wrong to have settled for the other interpretation -- as
lead editor I apologise for allowing this error to occur.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org