• To: "'Jirka Kosek'" <jirka@k...>,"'Stan Kitsis'" <skits@m...>
• Subject: RE: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:15:12 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <44A303FA.10409@k...>
• Thread-index: AcabAyjlnUfMYL4wT/6O74VN+tnoSwAA7xlQ

> Weren't such corner cases caused by a lack of formal 
> underpinning and complexity of XSD spec?

Complexity, yes. Lack of formal underpinning, no. I don't think one can
argue that Relax-NG has stronger formal underpinning than XSD has.

For the rule in question, there is no ambiguity in the specification. In
fact the rule is very simple. It's just very easy to miss it, given the
astonishing complexity (one might say, formality) of the overall rules for
handling referential integrity constraints (which, as far as I can tell,
have no parallel in RELAX-NG).

I'm surprised though that Xerces doesn't catch violations of this particular
rule: it's normally very conformant.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
    • From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
• Next by Date: Re: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
• Previous by thread: Re: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
• Next by thread: RE: Restrictions on existence of attributes?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread