Re: UPA example

On 24 Jun 2008, at 08:55 , Boris Kolpackov wrote:

> Consider the following schema:
>
> <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> 	targetNamespace="test"
>         elementFormDefault="qualified">
>
>   <complexType name="AnyTargetNamespace">
>     <sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">
>       <element name="apple" type="string"/>
>       <any namespace="##targetNamespace" processContents="skip"     
> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>     </sequence>
>   </complexType>
>
> </schema>
>
> My interpretation of the specification suggests that this schema
> violates the Unique Particle Attribution constraint in that a
> content like this:
>
> <apple/>
> <apple/>
> <apple/>
>
> Can be validated in two ways:
>
> <apple/> validated by element
> <apple/> validated by any
> <apple/> validated by any
>
> Or:
>
> <apple/> validated by element
> <apple/> validated by any
> <apple/> validated by element
>
> Does anybody think this is not the case and if so, why?

It seems to depend on what you mean by the word "validated".  If
you mean "accepted as valid", then no, the second parse does not
accept the input as valid (because in the second iteration through
the sequence, there is a match for the element particle, but not for
the wildcard particle, which has minOccurs=1).

But if you mean only that the validation process can assign
any prefix of three 'apple' elements to two different sequences of
particles, then yes, you are right, those three input elements
could be assigned in either of the two ways you describe, and
the content model thus fails to satisfy the determinism rule.

--Michael Sperberg-McQueen
   W3C