The Element Declarations Consistent rule for model groups ( 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-element-consistent) rules out 
inconsistent element declarations like the following two conflicting 
definitions of element <a> i.e., <a> cannot be both an "int" and a "string" in 
the same group: 

(example-1)
<xs:complexType name="example-1">
  <xs:sequence>
    <xs:element name="a" type="xs:int"/>
    <xs:element name="whatever"/>
    <xs:element name="a" type="xs:string"/>
  </xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>

In addition to explicit element declarations, the rule also prevents conflicts 
between elements that appear "either directly, indirectly, or implicitly", 
i.e., between nested model groups or elements permitted via substitution 
groups. 

My question: consider the following "tricky" indirect case involving a wildcard 
referencing a global element - 

(example-2)
<xs:element name="a" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:complexType name="example-2">
  <xs:sequence>
    <xs:element name="a" type="xs:int"/>
    <xs:element name="whatever"/>
    <xs:any namespace="##targetNamespace" processContents="lax"/>
  </xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>

Clearly the local <a> and the indirect reference to the global <a> 
are "inconsistent" with each other within the content model of example-2, but 
I'm not sure if the "directly, indirectly, or implicitly" language in the ETC 
rule captures this case. 

Is there a hole in the EDC rule language with respect to example-2? Is this 
something that could be clarified in an errata? 

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003OctDec/0029.html