DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20651] New: - Identically named elements declared in a "choice" model group

[bu...@apache.org]

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20651>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20651

Identically named elements declared in a "choice" model group

           Summary: Identically named elements declared in a "choice" model
                    group
           Product: Xerces2-J
           Version: 2.4.0
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT/2K
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Normal
          Priority: Other
         Component: XML Schema Structures
        AssignedTo: xerces-j-dev@xml.apache.org
        ReportedBy: william.jamieson@db.com


The XML Schema Structures standard section 3.8.1 describes the following 
constraint on element names within the "choice" model group ...

"When two or more particles contained directly or indirectly in the {particles} 
of a model group have identically named element declarations as their {term}, 
the type definitions of those declarations must be the same. By 'indirectly' is 
meant particles within the {particles} of a group which is itself the {term} of 
a directly contained particle, and so on recursively"

I would therefore expect no problem parsing the following snippet of XSD ...

...
<xsd:complexType name="AdjustableDate">
<xsd:choice>
  <xsd:sequence>
    <xsd:element name="AdjustedDate" type="DbGMLType:Date"/>
    <xsd:element name="UnadjustedDate" type="DbGMLType:Date"/>
  </xsd:sequence>
  <xsd:sequence>
     <xsd:element name="UnadjustedDate" type="DbGMLType:Date"/>
   </xsd:sequence>
   <xsd:sequence>
     <xsd:element name="AdjustedDate" type="DbGMLType:Date"/>
   </xsd:sequence>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:AdjustableDate>
...

i.e. where one or the other or both of a pair of identically named elements of 
identical type are required.

xerces 2.4.0 claims that this structure is syntactically invalid. According to 
my interpretation of the above clause from the standard this is not so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-help@xml.apache.org