Hello Mukul,
thank you very much, that was one of the answers I was searching for. I
didn't realize that there is a difference between particles and element
types (names) -- but of course it makes sense when reading the unique
_particle_ attribution.
And thanks for the Xerces hint as well.
Regards,
Maik
Am 31.01.11 16:27, schrieb Mukul Gandhi:
> Hi Maik,
> In the example you've cited below, in the first case the schema
> defines 5 particles (the 5 element particles) while in the 2nd case
> the schema defines only one particle (but whose cardinality is> 1,
> and that is a deterministic schema to validate an XML instance
> document).
>
> If the XML document fragment was following, for example:
> <b/>
> <b/>
> <b/>
> <b/>
>
> and if this was attempted to be validated by the Schema sequence
> defined in your first case, then we should get a UPA violation (since
> the XML Schema validator cannot determine that with which element
> particle, the instance element should be validated).
>
> As a side note: I think Xerces has an option to turn off UPA checking,
> so you can perform a lax validation ignoring UPA concerns.
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Maik Stührenberg
> <> wrote:
>> It would be interesting to know why XSD processors do make a difference
>> between
>>
>> <xs:element name="a">
>> <xs:complexType>
>> <xs:sequence>
>> <xs:element ref="b"/>
>> <xs:element ref="b"/>
>> <xs:element ref="b"/>
>> <xs:element ref="b" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
>> <xs:element ref="b" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
>> </xs:sequence>
>> </xs:complexType>
>> </xs:element>
>>
>> and
>>
>> <xs:element name="a">
>> <xs:complexType>
>> <xs:sequence>
>> <xs:element ref="b" minOccurs="3" maxOccurs="5"/>
>> </xs:sequence>
>> </xs:complexType>
>> </xs:element>
>
>
>
>
--
Maik Stührenberg, M.A.
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft
Universitätsstraße 25
33615 Bielefeld
Telefon: +49 (0)521/106-2534
E-Mail:
http://www.maik-stuehrenberg.de
http://www.xstandoff.net
