[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Subject: Two Questions - on XML Schema
- From: "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:17:55 +0530
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=hwofMEoO93cVxaxW6N6iIvTcbqQrBZ6OZaVhYl0V0P+IT7QnAs4fZEo1sEcSfN8uAUEF3hGqsKyqrhgqQWLLI4GD2z6zEv2NYbdZWRrPqrVadtJEueKWAEvijD/Uyumx7Pg4hPm5vOVb5Oh1hlOKs+RfCr3f18YCxNGgtEynaf4=
Hi All,
Needed a few clarifications. Would appreciate if someone cd comment on the following.
1) Reposting the earlier question posted on xmlschema-dev -> Are there plans to revisit the semantics of "xsd:all" in the upcoming versions of XSD.
i.e removing the cardinality constraints on the items that can exist within "xsd:all" ?
Are there any known issues/ambiguities introduced as a result of unconstrained cardinality of items that can exist within xsd:all ?
2) What is the rationale for disallowing choices between attributes in XML Schema ? Please note that this scenario has had repercussions on other specifications as well. [I am referring to WSDL specifications that have this requirement, but have ended up with a more loose definition for entites due to this restriction].
A simple example is the "type" and "element" attribute information items on the "part" element. These attributes are mutually exclusive, but since there are no options in XML Schema to capture this scenario, they have solved this by making both of them as minOccurs="0".
Thanks and regards,
Menon
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
| 