This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Is the following restriction valid: BASE: <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="skip" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xs:sequence> DERIVED: <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:element name="A" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xs:element name="B" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> <xs:sequence> From Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (All:All,Sequence:Sequence -- Recurse) 2 There is a complete order-preserving functional mapping from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles in the {particles} of B such that all of the following must be true: ... [Definition:] A complete functional mapping is order-preserving if each particle r in the domain R maps to a particle b in the range B which follows (not necessarily immediately) the particle in the range B mapped to by the predecessor of r, if any, where "predecessor" and "follows" are defined with respect to the order of the lists which constitute R and B. " See the following for Henry's answer and subsequent thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0057.html See also the following related mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www- xml-schema-comments/2003OctDec/0023.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2003Oct/0026.html And, see the following related mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www- xml-schema-comments/2004JanMar/0037.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004JanMar/0044.html
This question appears to be answered, now, by the validation rule Content Type Restricts. Every sequence of elements locally valid against the derived type is locally valid against the base, and the mapping Test[ES,Base](E) subsumes the mapping Test[ES,Derived](E) for all elements E in all element sequences ES. Is this issue now ready to be closed without action?
At its telcon of 27 October 2006, the Working Group agreed to close this issue for 1.1, and open a parallel issue for 1.0 (bug 3870) which will remain open. The rationale for closing the issue is that it relates to the constructive rules for checking restriction, which are no longer part of 1.1.