Hi all,
In the XML Schema structures spec, at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/ .
Please read the following section,
3.4.2.2 Mapping Rules for Complex Types with Simple Content
and this definition [1]:
<restriction
base = QName
id = ID
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: (annotation?, (simpleType?, (minExclusive | minInclusive |
maxExclusive | maxInclusive | totalDigits | fractionDigits | maxScale
| minScale | length | minLength | maxLength | enumeration | whiteSpace
| pattern | assert | {any with namespace: ##other})*)?, ((attribute |
attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?), assert*)
</restriction>
Here, this part is I believe is a facet definition (can we call these
facets here?), applying to this type:
(minExclusive | minInclusive | maxExclusive | maxInclusive |
totalDigits | fractionDigits | maxScale | minScale | length |
minLength | maxLength | enumeration | whiteSpace | pattern | assert |
{any with namespace: ##other})*
This grammar gives me a feeling, that *only 1 facet* can be present in
Schema (with 0-n instances of this single facet).
But in reality, I think we can have multiple facet definitions on a
single xs:restriction definition, like following [2]:
<restriction base=".."
<facet1 value="" />
<facet2 value="" />
<assert test="" />
</restriction>
My questions are,
1) Is the Schema grammar [1] correct, and what is the interpretation
regarding the number and ordering of facet definitions?
2) Is my statement [2] correct? If yes, then the code I submitted for
assertions patch has a bug. I have assumed, that we can have only 1
facet (with 0-n in numbers).
Could you please clarify this, so I can resolve the likely bug in my code.
--
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
