This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Efficient Extensible Interchange Working Group Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-2103 LC-2104 LC-2105 LC-2106 LC-2107 LC-2108 LC-2109 LC-2110 LC-2130 LC-2132 LC-2133 LC-2164 LC-2165 LC-2166 LC-2167 LC-2168 LC-2169 LC-2170 LC-2171 LC-2172 LC-2173 LC-2174 LC-2175 LC-2176 LC-2177 LC-2178 LC-2179 LC-2180 LC-2181 LC-2182 LC-2183 LC-2184 LC-2185 LC-2186 LC-2187 LC-2188 LC-2189 LC-2190 LC-2191 LC-2192 LC-2193 LC-2194 LC-2196 LC-2197 LC-2198 LC-2227 LC-2248
Previous: LC-2174 Next: LC-2186
Dear EXI WG, I would like to have some clarification on two cases regarding SE(* ) grammar selection. 0) A schema with several element definitions for the same QName. We can have a schema with several local element definitions and at most one global element definition with the same QName. I assume that we generate as many grammars as needed for the same QName element and that the selection of the right grammar in schema-informed mode is done using scope information. Is that assumption right or is a different approach being used? 1) Wildcard SE(*). Which grammar should I peak for a SE(*) belonging to a wildcard term? - If I have a global element definition and one or more local element definition, should I peak the global element grammar? - If I have only one local element definition, should I peak the local element grammar or peak/create a built-in grammar? I did not found much description on the wildcard section related to that. Some guidance may be good there. 2) Built in SE(*). Which grammar should I peak for a SE(*) belonging to a built-in grammar? If I have a global element definition (plus maybe local element definitions), should I peak/create a built-in grammar or the global element grammar ? If I have a local element definition, should I peak a built-in grammar or the local element grammar ? My understanding of the current spec (see the semantics section of 8.4.3) is that a SE(*) belonging to a built-in grammar may only lead to a built-in grammar for its content but my understanding may be too restrictive? Since we can go from built-in grammar to schema-informed grammar using xsi:type, I would hope that at least when we have a GED grammar, we are able to go from built-in to schema-informed grammar directly through the SE mechanism. Regards, Youenn