>Archive Index
>xmlschema-dev Archive Home
>Recent entries

>Thread Prev - RE: UPA example
>Thread Next - Re: UPA example

Re: UPA example

From: Boris Kolpackov <boris@-------------.--->
To: xmlschema-dev@--.---
Date: 6/25/2008 11:59:00 AM

Hi,

Thanks to everyone for your insights.

Radu Preotiuc-Pietro <radup@b...> writes:

> Maybe it's also interesting to mention that, while in XML Schema 1.1 the
> Schema becomes valid, the instance
> 
> <apple/>
> <apple/>
> <apple/>
> 
> won't be valid still (based on my understanding, the third <apple/>
> element will map to the element particle and the validator will still be
> waiting for an element to map to the wildcard).

Yes, I also think it won't be valid unless the parser in 1.1 is expected
to do backtracking. I am also wondering if the authors of this change to
the spec considered how hard it will be to explain something like this
to a user.

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

From boris@c... Wed Jun 25 08:29:31 2008
Received: from [128.30

>Thread Prev - RE: UPA example
>Thread Next - Re: UPA example

>Archive Index
>xmlschema-dev Archive Home
>Recent entries

Altova Mailing List Archives

Re: UPA example