Re: optional, but at least one required

George, thanks for the tip, I'm assuming that the (a|b|c)+ is the
example that you gave me.  It seemed to do the trick.  I will also try
Vegard's idea to see if that solves the problem.  Thanks.

On 1/6/06, George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Then a model like (a|b|c)+ looks like exactly what want.
>
> Best Regards,
> George
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> George Cristian Bina
> <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
> http://www.oxygenxml.com
>
>
> Brian Bonner wrote:
> > George, Michael,  thanks.
> >
> > I'm sorry I wasn't complete.  Yes, multiple occurrences of a, b and c
> > are allowed.  That's a critical piece I left out.
> >
> >
> > So, someone could create:
> >
> > <options>
> >      <a/>
> > </options>
> >
> > <options>
> >      <a/>
> >      <b/>
> > </options>
> >
> > <options>
> >       <b/>
> > </options>
> >
> > <options>
> >       <a/>
> >       <b/>
> >       <c/>
> > </options>
> >
> > and several others,
> >
> > but not:
> >
> > <options/>
> >
> > So each of them are optional, but *at least* one of them must be
> > specified and multiple can be specified at once.
> >
> > I think George's model which imposes ordering on the elements might do
> > the trick.  I'll give that a shot.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Brian
>