Subject: Re: Combining maxOccurs="unbounded" with all indicator - msg#00059

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Combining maxOccurs="unbounded" with all indicator

On Monday 01 November 2004 13:26, Jeni Tennison wrote: > Hi Frans, > > > How do I achieve this -- allow multiple unbounded elements to be > > freely mixed with each others and simple elements? > > This is probably the most frequent of FAQs. > > DTDs have a similar restriction, and the traditional approach is to > define the model using something like: > > ((include | group)*, kcfgfile, (include | group)*) I have a similar problem again, but this time a DTD expression validates for it. It looks like this: <!ELEMENT Menu (title | Action | ActionList | Separator | WeakSeparator | TearOffHandle | Merge | MergeLocal | DefineGroup | Menu )*> My DTD knowledge is smaller than what I know about XML Schema, but to me that reads like Menu may contain zero or more of those listed items, in any order. I tried to replicate it in XML Schema(snipped and compacted): <xsd:element name="Menu"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:all> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="title" type="caption" /> <xsd:element ref="Action" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xsd:element ref="ActionList" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="TearOffHandle"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="DefineGroup"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="MergeLocal"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="Separator" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="WeakSeparator" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="Menu" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="Merge" /> </xsd:all> This obviously doesn't work since 'all' indicator and maxOccurs="unbounded" is combined, but it illustrates what I want. Is it impossible to express such constructs, which works in DTD, in XML Schema, or have I missed something? Cheers, Frans

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: conditional occurrences of child elements

Hi Josef, No, that is not possible in XML Schema. Best Regards, George --------------------------------------------------------------------- George Cristian Bina <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger http://www.oxygenxml.com jozef.aerts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Is it possible in XML-Schema to define the number of occurrences of an element on the value of an attribute of its parent element ? For example: I have a parent element with name Person and attribute Gender. Gender can only have the values 'Male' or 'Female'. No problem sofar. Now I want to define a subelement 'Pregant' of 'Person'. The element 'Pregnant' should have no occurrences if the value of its parent element attribute 'Gender' is 'Male'. The element 'Pregnant' should have 1 occurrence if the value of its parent element attribute 'Gender' is 'Female'. Is it possible to define something like this in XML-Schema ? Best regards Jozef Aerts

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Combining maxOccurs="unbounded" with all indicator

On Monday 01 November 2004 13:26, Jeni Tennison wrote: > Hi Frans, > > > How do I achieve this -- allow multiple unbounded elements to be > > freely mixed with each others and simple elements? > > This is probably the most frequent of FAQs. > > DTDs have a similar restriction, and the traditional approach is to > define the model using something like: > > ((include | group)*, kcfgfile, (include | group)*) I have a similar problem again, but this time a DTD expression validates for it. It looks like this: <!ELEMENT Menu (title | Action | ActionList | Separator | WeakSeparator | TearOffHandle | Merge | MergeLocal | DefineGroup | Menu )*> My DTD knowledge is smaller than what I know about XML Schema, but to me that reads like Menu may contain zero or more of those listed items, in any order. I tried to replicate it in XML Schema(snipped and compacted): <xsd:element name="Menu"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:all> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" name="title" type="caption" /> <xsd:element ref="Action" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xsd:element ref="ActionList" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="TearOffHandle"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="DefineGroup"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="MergeLocal"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="Separator" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="WeakSeparator" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="Menu" /> <xsd:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="Merge" /> </xsd:all> This obviously doesn't work since 'all' indicator and maxOccurs="unbounded" is combined, but it illustrates what I want. Is it impossible to express such constructs, which works in DTD, in XML Schema, or have I missed something? Cheers, Frans

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

'Re: "Re: Comparison of values of anySimpleType"'

Hi, Ahh, thanks for the hint; I did poke in XML Schema Part 2, and was too blind to see this obvious statement in XML Schema Part 1. Hmm, observing the changed behaviour in Xerces-J 2.6.2 - it seems to dislike comparison with 'anySimpleType' now: does the XS world tend to move to disallow comparison with 'anySimpleType' here? If using IDCs: is the simple/complex ur-type assumed for nodes, for which no declarations exist, if processed by skip/lax wildcards? Or are IDC fields restricted to resolve to declared (or xsi:type) nodes only? Thanks & regards, Kasimier noah_mendelsohn@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From our brand, spanking new XML Schema 1.0 Second Edition Recommendation > [1]: > "The mapping from lexical space to value space is unspecified for items > whose type definition is the ·simple ur-type definition·. Accordingly this > specification does not constrain processors' behaviour in areas where this > mapping is implicated, for example checking such items against > enumerations, constructing default attributes or elements whose declared > type definition is the ·simple ur-type definition·, checking identity > constraints involving such items. > > Note: The Working Group expects to return to this area in a future version > of this specification." > Key/keyref are what the Recommendation calls Identity Constraints. So, > this is a rare case where processors implementing different validation > rules are all conforming. > > Noah > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/#Type_Definition_Summary > > -------------------------------------- > Noah Mendelsohn > IBM Corporation > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > 1-617-693-4036 > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@xxxxxx > 10/20/04 07:45 AM > > > To: <xmlschema-dev@xxxxxx> > cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) > Subject: Comparison of values of anySimpleType > > > > Hi, > > I have trouble understanding how 'anySimpleType' is handled if comparing > values. Xerces and XSV seem to differ here. > > Identity-constraint example: > (using Xerces-J 2.5.1, XSV 2.5-2, MSXML 4.0) > > <sequence> > <element name="b" type="anySimpleType"/> > <element name="c" type="float"/> > </sequence> > > <b>1.0</b> > <c>1.0</c> > > with the value of 'c' being a keyref to the key value of 'b'. > > Results: XSV and MSXML do not find the referenced key, Xerces does. > > if both types are 'float': > > Results: All tree validators find the referenced key. > > I cannot find a hint for 'anySimpleType' being not comparable with the > primitive types. The PER for datatypes says: > > "anySimpleType is considered to have an unconstrained lexical space and > a ·value space· consisting of the union of the ·value space·s of all the > ·primitive· datatypes and the set of all lists of all members of the > ·value space·s of all the ·primitive· datatypes." > > Further "4.2.1 equal" says: > > "if a datatype T' is ·derived· by ·restriction· from an atomic datatype > T then the ·value space· of T' is a subset of the ·value space· of T. > Values in the ·value space·s of T and T' can be compared according to > the above rules " > > Can someone explain? > > Greetings, > > Kasimier >