RE: [Xmldb-org-xupdate] Re: Xupdate XSD
Brought to you by:
reinhapa
From: Kasimier B. <kbu...@4c...> - 2005-08-23 19:47:11
|
Hi, On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 16:05 +0100, Isidro Vila Verde wrote: > Well, > > In the same document, but in section where the choice is defined > (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-choice) say that: > > <choice > id = ID > maxOccurs = (nonNegativeInteger | unbounded) : 1 > minOccurs = nonNegativeInteger : 1 > {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}> > Content: (annotation?, (element | group | choice | sequence | any)*) > </choice> Yes, this is quite misleading; and I was misled by it as well, until someone pointed out that even the schema for schemas was not reflecting the fact that the occurences are not allowed on the model group child of model group definitions. At that time the schema for schemas was changed. Have a look at the model group definition itself, which makes things much clearer: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-namedModelGroup There we have: "Also note that in the first (named) case above no reference is made to minOccurs or maxOccurs: this is because the schema for schemas does not allow them on the child of <group> when it is named. This in turn is because the {min occurs} and {max occurs} of the particles which refer to the definition are what count." > And in http://xmlsoft.org/index.html we have this warning: > > "A partial implementation of XML Schemas Part 1: Structure is being worked > on but it would be far too early to make any conformance statement about it > at the moment". ;-) So you assume any schema to be valid if Libxml2 reports it as invalid? We are very careful with conformance statements. In fact, Libxml2's schema processor is beyond the level this statement might communicate. > But I must admit I don't check the Schema of Schemas. > > Thank you for your alert. Regards, Kasimier |