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 
changes.> 

ht
--
  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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:51 GMT