|
Yes, it's valid. It would be valid even if you
changed the third particle to
<xsd:element name="b" form="unqualified"
type="xsd:int"/>
because although the two "b" elements now have different
types, they also have different names - one is qualified and the other
isn't.
The clause that I think you are worried about
is:
Schema Component
Constraint: Element Declarations Consistent
If the {particles} contains,
either directly, indirectly (that is, within the {particles} of a
contained model group, recursively) or ·implicitly · two or more element
declaration particles with the same {name} and {target
namespace}, then all their type definitions must be the same top-level
definition,
and in this case, your two element declaration particles
have a different {target namespace}, so the rule doesn't
apply.
If you change the content model to
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="b"/>
<xsd:element name="c"/>
<xsd:element name="b"/>
</xsd:sequence>
Then it's still valid because the two "b" elements both
have the same type. (It's not 100% clear that xs:anyType is a "top-level"
type definition - the term "top-level" doesn't seem to be defined anywhere - but
the rule as quoted above is followed by further explanation which makes it
clear).
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
Hello,
Is the following
considered valid or not?
Schema:
<?xml version="1.0"
encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified"
targetNamespace="foo" xmlns="foo">
<xsd:element name="a">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="b"/>
<xsd:element name="c"/>
<xsd:element name="b" form="unqualified"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:schema>
Instance:
<bar:a
xmlns:bar="foo">
<bar:b/>
<bar:c/>
<b/>
</bar:a>
I think it should be
valid because the two local declarations of the element b have the same data
type, anyType, in this case. I could not feel confident with my understanding,
though, as I did not read that this is OK in the
standard.
Thanks.
Shlomo.
|
