Thanks a lot.

This does indeed help.

Shlomo.

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

 

---

From: Shlomo Yona [mailto:S.Yona@F...]
Sent: 29 May 2007 14:13
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Elements declaration with same name in same complexType and name qualification

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.