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

Re: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt

• To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• Subject: Re: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
• From: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@a...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:26:32 +1000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621D32@r...> <3D1675B2.7080401@a...> <6776770810.20020624101855@j...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530

Hi Jeni,

>>SQC complains about the above but it also gives the following error:
>>
>>TYPE REFINEMENT ERROR (content type incompatible with the content type 
>>of the basetype):
>>In the definition of complexType DareObasanjo, elementOnly content model (
>><xs:sequence maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1">
>>    <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1" name="numPosts" 
>>nillable="false" type="xs:integer"/>
>>    <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1" name="signature" 
>>nillable="false" type="xs:string"/>
>></xs:sequence>
>>)
>>is not a restriction of elementOnly content model (
>><xs:sequence maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1">
>>    <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="numPosts" 
>>type="xs:integer"/>
>>    <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1" name="signature" 
>>nillable="true" type="xs:string"/>
>></xs:sequence>
>>),
>>the content type defined by the basetype.
>>
>>I'm not sure if this is indded an error that the others have missed or 
>>if SQC is incorrect but my guess is that the error relates to how 
>>nillable can be modified in a restriction. I can't find this in the spec 
>>so I'll leave it to others to decide if SQC is wrong and the others 
>>correct or vice versa.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know what SQC is complaining about, but it shouldn't be the
>value of nillable. Schema Component Constraint: Particle Restriction
>OK (Elt:Elt -- NameAndTypeOK) states:
>
>  For an element declaration particle to be a ·valid restriction· of
>  another element declaration particle all of the following must be
>  true:
>  ...
>  2 Either B's {nillable} is true or R's {nillable} is false.
>  ...
>                 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-NameAndTypeOK
>
>In this case, B's {nillable} is true and R's {nillable} is false, so
>it should be fine from what I can tell.
>
Yes, it does seems that the example is a valid restriction with regards 
to the nillable restriction so I guess this must be a bug in SQC because 
I can't see anything else that looks wrong.

Thanks for the pointer,
/Eddie

>                 
>Cheers,
>
>Jeni
>
>---
>Jeni Tennison
>http://www.jenitennison.com/
>
>  
>

• References:
  • RE: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@a...>
  • Re: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
• Next by Date: RE: Intuition and XML Schema restriction (was: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
• Next by thread: RE: XML Schema to relaxNG xslt
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread