[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
----- Original Message From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
> The current thinking, at least among many WG members, is that <all> groups
> in their current forms are not usually implemented with the sort of FSM's
> that would exhibit combinatorial explosion. Given that all groups are
> relatively separate from <sequence> and <choice>, there are
> implementations in which simple counters can be used to ensure that the
> number of elements seen meets the constraint.
>
> There is also discussion of more general support, in which <all> can be
> mixed with <sequence> and <choice>; in that case, we do have to be very
> careful to understand the impact on the more general FSM and on
> restriction and extension. For those reasons, I personally am nervous
> about proposing to mix <all> with other model groups, though we have had
> requests from some users. Support for maxOccurs>1 may well make it into
> the working drafts for Schema 1.1.
Do you have a timetable on when you will be making decisions about <all>? I
was contemplating doing an implementation to verify it, but won't have the
resource for 2 or 3 week.
Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================
|
