http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5293 ------- Comment #5 from mike@saxonica.com 2007-11-29 10:28 ------- >I suppose it is too late to insist that the structure of the derived type should mirror the structure of the base type. That gets back to the 1.0 approach which disallows many perfectly reasonable restrictions. In many ways, starting from scratch, I would prefer a syntax for restriction where you define the differences rather than defining the new type and requiring the system to check consistency. That would be far easier from a maintenance viewpoint, because a change to the base type would then be automatically inherited by its subtypes. We do this for attributes (use="prohibited"), we do it for facet-based restriction, we do it for assertions; it's a shame we can't do it with content models. But that's opening up the discussion too far for comfort.Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 10:28:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:12 GMT