> ... I have problem with "not_allowed_element".
You are right about the "not_allowed_element" case. I just fixed it in CVS
(which means it'll be in the next release).
> Now back to the problem with derivation by restriction and <any> Element.
> I am not so fimilar with W3C specs and my english is also bad. May
> be somebody else can tell me whether my example below correct is or
> not. Either microsoft msxml4 or Xerces have here Problem.
I'm pretty sure Xerces is correct not to report an error on your example.
:-) Here is the analysis:
Your base type has a particle, which has a sequence model group as its
{term}, which has only 1 item in its {particles}, which is a particle,
whose {term} is a wildcard. Here the first particle with sequence is
pointless, because it only has 1 item.
Your derived type has a particle, which has a sequence model group as its
{term}, which has 2 items in its {particles}, both of which are particles
with an element declaration as their {term}s.
According rules in 3.9.6, because the derived type has a sequence particle,
and the base is a wildcard (after removing the pointless sequence), we need
to follow "NSRecurse- CheckCardinality" [1] case from the table. Now it's
trivial to see from this constraint that your example is a valid
derivation.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-NSRecurseCheckCardinality
Thanks,
Sandy Gao
Software Developer, IBM Canada
(1-905) 413-3255
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
