Re: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards

Pete Cordell asks (regarding wildcards):

> What is the justification for the currently specified set of rules?

Imagine a container format like SOAP.  Is it not possible that somewhere 
in the descendents of the body element it should allow the appearance of 
another soap envelope?  The most basic wildcard is therefore one that 
accepts absolutely anything, including instances of elements that are 
declared in the schema. 

You can also make the case that it's not entirely unacceptable even in the 
cases we're discussing:  if the first "middle" name matches an element 
reference particle, and a 2nd matches the wildcard, many APIs will expose 
that to the application.  The application can then either ignore it, 
reject it, or give it some meaning as appropriate.  Nonetheless, it was 
because we realized that some users would want more help from the content 
model itself that we are likely to propose the notQName="##defined" 
construct (which, by the way, is known informally in the workgroup and in 
some blog postings I think as the "Not In Schema" or NIS wildcard.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------