W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Restrictions and element namespaces

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 06 Sep 2001 19:28:28 +0100
To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bwv3cfa2b.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
"Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com> writes:

> > The element declaration is what it is, regardless of what its
> > enclosing type definition may be based on.  
> This essentially means that if you use elementForm="qualified" for a local
> type, then you cannot restrict that local type in any schema with a
> different targetNamespace.

Correct -- I only realised this in this form a few weeks ago.

> This is certainly consistent in its own way, so not an a priori
> erratum.  However, it's certainly a major restriction on
> restriction.  If anyone needed a good reason not to muck with the
> defaults, this is it.

Note that appeal to the extensional definition of restriction makes it 
pretty clear why things have to work the way they do, absent wholesale 

  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 14:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:57 UTC