Hi. Trying to reply to both your messages in the thread.

> I would like to reply to Sandy that ...

As you can probably tell, I was just moving issues around instead of 
raising them. So I'd rather you say "reply to bug 2222". :-)

> Why wasn't the {max occur} property of particles just specified as a 
*positive* integer?  Am I missing something obvious?

Did you mean "Either a positive integer or unbounded"? (We do need the 
"unbounded" value.) Then I agree: "positive" makes more sense than 
"non-negative" because we never allow 0. And we can kill that 2.2 clause 
about {max occurs} must >= 1.

It's up to you to either add your comments to bug 2222 or open a new one 
[1] if you think they are sufficiently different.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=XML%20Schema

> The second issue above (beginning with "I also noticed the 
following...") is
> not reported in Sandy's bug report.

You are right. I vaguely remember seeing this comment before, but couldn't 
find it anywhere. Feel free to open a new bug.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Parser Development, IBM Canada
(1-905) 413-3255
sandygao@c...