I'd rather not go there at this time. IOW: we finally reached a decision
about containers that is agreeable to all. Let's leave it
there. It's not perfect, but it's a decision, and we can all live
with it, and we can change it in the future if needed (perhaps along
your line of thought) in a not very-disturbingly-backward-incompatible
manner.
Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>
>>>...
>>>yes, but...
>>>
>>>>Or could the container for cardinality 0..n be itself of
>>>>cardinality 0..1 (0 if instance content is 0 cardinality,
>>>>1 otherwise) instead of 1..1 (always has) or 0..0 (never has)?
>>>
>>>Hm, must think about this. Think, think, think...Well, I think
>>>it's a good idea, but not enforceable. I don't think there is
>>>any way to say, in XSD, that an instance is valid if and only
>>>if a given kind of list container does not appear in the instance
>>>when what it could contain does not appear, and does appear
>>>otherwise...IOW, there's no way to specify that it's optional
>>>under some circumstances but mandatory under others... Better let
>>>the user realize that having a container around order items makes
>>>sense while having one around possible street lines does not...
>
>
> (... as if the spirit never dies...)
>
> How feasible is it to use <xsd:choice> plus divide-and-conquer
> by having those cardinalities with 0..n divided into 2 choices
> of 0 + 1..n ?
If the <xsd:choice> is a run-time decision left
> to the UBL processor, it might just be possible though I stand
> corrected.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Chin Chee-Kai
> SoftML
>
Tel: +65-6820-2979
>
Fax: +65-6743-7875
>
Email:
> http://SoftML.Net/
>
>
--
Eduardo Gutentag
|
e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards |
Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.
|
1800 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
