See my reply below.
/Andrew Paterson/:
If I use:
<element name="test">
...
<group ref="test_group" minOccurs="0"/>
...
</element>
<group name="test_group">
<sequence>
<element name="field1" type="string" minOccurs="1"/>
<element name="field2" type="string" minOccurs="1"/>
</sequence>
</group>
The schema allows me to leave out <field1> and <field2> elements from the
<test> element even though they are mandatory in the group - i.e. it takes
notice of the minOccurs="0" attribute on the group reference. However, if the
situation is reversed (as in my original e-mail):
<element name="test">
...
<group ref="test_group" minOccurs="1"/>
...
</element>
<group name="test_group">
<sequence>
<element name="field1" type="string" minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="field2" type="string" minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</group>
it ignores the minOccurs="1" attribute on the group reference and allows the
elements to be omitted.
Nothing is ignored but both definitions are effectively the same -
see "Schema Component Constraint: Effective Total Range (all and
sequence)" <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-seq-range>. In the
first case you get:
test_group->minOccurs * (field1->minOccurs + field2->minOccurs)
0 * (1 + 1) = 0
and in the second:
1 * (0 + 0) = 0
--
Stanimir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
