W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Feature request - anonymous simplecontent type definition within complex type definition

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 02 Jul 2002 09:55:47 +0100
To: "Michael Leditschke" <mike@ammd.com.au>
Cc: "Priscilla Walmsley" <priscilla@walmsley.com>, "'James Clark'" <jjc@jclark.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bfzz2ik4s.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

"Michael Leditschke" <mike@ammd.com.au> writes:


> If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate a more basic explanation for a
> garden variety user like me. If I understand, 
> 1) urType is the root of the complex type tree, so all complex types may
>    be considered restrictions of urType
> 2) it is allowable to derive a complex type with simple content from a
>    complex type with mixed content where the minOccurs attributes
>    mean its possible to have no elements, only text.
> 3) urType by virtue of 1) may be considered to be a mixed content type
>    as per 2) and hence can be restrictied as per James's example

Good summary, all correct I believe.

> Would the syntax be similar in the case you cite of a mixed content 
> complex type restricted to one of simple content? For instance, would
> the only diference be the replacement of urType with the user defined
> named type?


  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 04:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:00 UTC