2231 2005-09-14 19:32:19 +0000 R-239: Question re: Element Declarations Consistent 2009-04-21 19:25:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.0 only All All CLOSED LATER P2 normal --- 1 sandygao ht aaz www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6256 0 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:32:19 +0000 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 6257 1 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:32:36 +0000 Henry's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003OctDec/0030.html Also, see follow-up mail re: potential other EDC issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003OctDec/0060.html 6425 2 sandygao 2005-09-23 04:23:13 +0000 This is essentially RQ-146. Propose to resolve it as "later". 6544 3 sandygao 2005-09-28 14:32:58 +0000 Discussed at 2005-09-23 telecon and decided to defer the this problem to 1.1.