|
[XMLSCHEMA-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: optional, but at least one required
From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:38:39 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01c80c14$6ffd4e50$5d00a8c0@Codalogic> To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Marie Bilde Rasmussen'" <mariebilderas@gmail.com> Cc: "'Virginia Wiswell'" <vwiswell@verizon.net>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> - Original Message From: "Michael Kay" > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="a" minOccurs="0"/> > <xs:element ref="b" minOccurs="0"/> > </xs:sequence> > <xs:assert test="a|b"/> Hum, seems simple enough :-) And, just to confirm that the simple case does not hide any nasties when extended up to bigger examples, Marie's case would simply be (ignoring the specific names): <xs:assert test="a|b|c|d|e|f|..."/> BTW - If, in another schema snippet, I wanted either attribute A or element E, but not both, then my expression would be: <xs:assert test="@A and fn:not(E) or fn:not(@A) and E"/> I don't think I can do the following though, because I can't do "...eq 1": <xs:assert test="op:count(@A|E) eq 1"/> Is that the case? Thanks, Pete. ============================================= Pete Cordell Codalogic for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ =============================================Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 14:39:07 GMT |
Subscribe in XML format
|






