[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Problems with xs:redefine

• To: "'Kasimier Buchcik'" <K.Buchcik@4...>
• Subject: RE: Problems with xs:redefine
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:47:06 -0000
• Cc: "'ML-xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1132842536.1290.66.camel@librax>
• Thread-index: AcXxA2axEtzwuZcyR8iGZRcGrdTeGwAAiCjA

> 
> A 'same declaration' could also be an identical component, 
> couldn't it?
> If yes, then shouldn't the following model be accepted by 
> Saxon as well?
> I'm a bit scared of the necessity of component identity checks here.
> 
> <xs:choice>
>     <xs:element name="a"/>
>     <xs:element name="b"/>
>     <xs:sequence>
>         <xs:element name="a"/>
>         <xs:element name="b"/>
>     </xs:sequence>
> </xs:choice>
> 

The term "identity" is a bit confusing here. As far as Saxon is concerned,
if you write

<choice>
  <element ref="a"/>
  <element ref="a"/>
</choice>
<element name="a"/>

then there are two element particles and one element declaration, while if
you write

<choice>
  <element name="a"/>
  <element name="a"/>
</choice>

then there are two particles and two declarations. Two declarations are not
considered identical merely because they have the same content.

Michael Kay

• References:
  • RE: Problems with xs:redefine
    • From: Kasimier Buchcik <K.Buchcik@4...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Problems with xs:redefine
• Next by Date: RE: Problems with xs:redefine
• Previous by thread: RE: Problems with xs:redefine
• Next by thread: RE: Problems with xs:redefine
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread