[XMLSCHEMA-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Motivations for restricting the "all" group

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:46:33 +0100
To: "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>, "'Dag Hovland'" <dag.hovland@uib.no>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B5361688BEB142FDB32AD4CAFBA085CA@Sealion>
RE: Motivations for restricting the "all" group
> I think the feeling now is that there are other, non-state 
> machine ways to implement validation of constructs such as 
> xs:all with unrestricted cardinality and so the restrictions 
> are relaxed.

Yes, it's very easy to implement the validator with counters. The hardest
part in implementing the 1.1 spec is the rules for valid restrictions, for
example the fact that sequence(a, b, a?, b, a?) is a valid restriction of
all(a{1,5}, b{1,2}). And it's a little frustrating having to implement such
features when you know no-one is ever likely to write such a thing!

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 10:47:17 GMT

Subscribe to the Stylus Scoop newsletter for helpful XML tips and tutorials.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company

Download Stylus Studio 6 XML Enterprise Edition

Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2007 All Rights Reserved.