DR 09-0157 - WML: restriction on ordering of run properties

[Chris Rae]

Oops - thanks for the correction. I'm sorry I wasn't on the teleconference (I didn't deliberately pick my day off to coincide with it!).

In that case I am very much in favour of Jirka's option A (prose restrictions) and not his option B (making the RNG schemas normative). I know there are strong feelings around the schema definition language we should be using but I can't persuade myself that having *two* normative schemas is a good idea, and I think that switching to use RNG is a work item large enough that we shouldn't do it just as a part of this DR.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: 27 April 2010 16:02
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 09-0157 - WML: restriction on ordering of run properties

> Hi Jirka et al - is there room for an option D?

No.

>I spoke to Zeyad (our WordprocessingML guy) and he proposed grouping 
>the elements and using xsd:all with minOccurs=0. This ensures that the 
>zero or more of the child elements can exist, in any order.

This option was considered and turned down since the XSD spec does not allow such use of xsd:all.  Xerces-J does report an error.

Cheers,
Makoto