> Right. We could have a restriction on combine="group" that you can't use it
> in a way which makes order significant (eg combining two <element>
> patterns). On the other hand that would rule out using combine="group" to
Oops, I found that things are not so easy.
<define name="foo">
<element/>
</define>
<define name="foo" combine="group">
<attribute/>
</define>
<define name="foo" combine="choice">
<element/>
</define>
Is still order-dependent.
> patterns). On the other hand that would rule out using combine="group" to
> provide functionality similar to derivation of complex types by extension in
> XML Schema (adding things on to the end of a content model).
When I first saw combine="group", I felt it a bit asymmetric because it
doesn't allow me to prepend a pattern to an existing pattern.
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems
