Re: It seems to be a problem with the XML Schema for Schemas which is normative...

So it turns out I _did_ answer the question at the time, but I moved
the discussion to xmlschema-dev [1], without leaving a pointer here,
which I should have.  Here's what I said:

  This is a sensible architecture, but I don't understand the reply
  from XML Mind -- the sForS does in fact rule out a base attribute on
  xs:complexType elements, so their tool should throw it out at [1].

  I've moved this discussion to xmlschema-dev, since it's not an issue
  about the REC as such.

ht

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2005Jan/0032.html
-- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.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]