4147 2007-01-03 17:20:07 +0000 MS Particles tests: particlesV020 2012-12-04 00:52:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Test Suite Microsoft tests 2006-11-06 PC Windows 3.1 NEW MSM to fork a duplicate test for 1.1 but with valid outcome. disputedTest P2 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq David_E3 public-xml-schema-testsuite oldest_to_newest 13342 0 mike 2007-01-03 17:20:07 +0000 In the Microsoft Particles test set, test <test group="particlesV020" name="particlesV020"/> the schema is described as invalid. XSV also reports it invalid, but I am not convinced this is supported by a reading of the spec. In private correspondence, Henry Thompson suggested that R is not validly derived from B, because the type of bar is derived from the type of SUB by extension, not by restriction. However, the rule: 2.1 Any top-level element declaration particle (in R or B) which is the {substitution group affiliation} of one or more other element declarations and whose ·substitution group· contains at least one element declaration other than itself is treated as if it were a choice group whose {min occurs} and {max occurs} are those of the particle, and whose {particles} consists of one particle with {min occurs} and {max occurs} of 1 for each of the declarations in its ·substitution group·. suggests that it boils down to a question of whether <element name="bar" type="x:c2"/> is validly derived from <choice> <element name="SUB" type="x:c1"/> <element name="bar" type="x:c2"/> </choice> and it would seem that it is, regardless of the relationship of x:c1 to x:c2. 13798 1 zafara 2007-01-24 18:31:58 +0000 Actually you have to wrap the derived element particle in a <choice> group itself to check a valid restriction as per Elt:All/Choice/Sequence -- RecurseAsIfGroup. So it comes down the question if <choice> <element name="bar" type="x:c2" maxOccurs="2"/> </choice> is a valid restriction of: <choice maxOccurs="3"> <element name="SUB" type="x:c1"/> <element name="bar" type="x:c2"/> </choice> which is clearly is not as the bar in the derived type is not a valid restriction of the one in the base type as it fails occurence range check. 31371 2 ht 2010-01-31 13:20:43 +0000 tending towards disputedTest. . .