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

Re: <restriction> is not actually a restriction

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Nov 2001 09:32:40 +0000
To: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5belmthjnr.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com> writes:

> I think the following derivation is valid:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="B">
>   <xs:anyAttribute namespace="urn:foo" processContents="strict"/>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> <xs:complexType name="D">
>   <xs:complexContent>
>     <xs:restriction base="B">
>       <xs:anyAttribute namespace="urn:foo" processContents="skip"/>
>     </xs:restriction>
>   </xs:complexContent>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> But in this derivation D is not a subset of B (i.e., some content model
> is valid wrt to D but not with B)

You're right -- I could have sworn we put something in about that, but
I don't see it -- I guess I'm thinking of defaults, which we did
catch.  This could/should perhaps be fixed independently of revisiting 
restriction in general.

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 Tuesday, 20 November 2001 04:31:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:57 GMT