Yes, it violates UPA. After the first occurrence of the wildcard there
would be a choice between the wildcard and element particles and the two
overlap in what they accept.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@c...
E-mail: mrglavas@a...

boris@c... wrote on 06/24/2008 10:55:03 AM:

> Hi,
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Boris
>
> --
> Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools
http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog
> Open source XML data binding for C++:
http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd
> Mobile/embedded validating XML parsing:
http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde