Re: I'd appreciate a second-look at this, just to double-check

George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com> writes:

> We apply then http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-RecurseAsIfGroup
>
> B:
>    <choice minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
>        <element ref="test:basicBit" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
>        <element ref="test:restrictedBasicBit" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
>      <choice>
>
> R:
>      <choice minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1">
>          <element ref="test:restrictedBasicBit" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>      </choice>

Yes, I think that step is where the problem arises.  I think the
intent is clear, and this _should_ be OK, and the REC is trying to get
it right, but failing.  _If_ we could convince ourselves that putting
the occurrence range on the synthesised group instead of leaving it on
the element was not just the right thing here, but always, there might
be a chance for an erratum against 1.0 here.

This is one of the places where XSV, which abandoned the constructive
rules some time ago to pilot the move planned for 1.1 to a strictly
subsumption/subset definition of allowed restriction, disagrees with
the letter of the REC (but not the spirit), and allows the
construction.

ht
-- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]