- From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@definedweb.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:04:19 -0700
- To: "Eddie Robertsson" <eddie@allette.com.au>
- Cc: "KAZUMI Saito" <ksaito@jp.fujitsu.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> I don't think this rule can be applied to the above example. The above [1] only > applies if both facets had been maxInclusive. However, in the above example the > base type has maxExlusive = "11" and then the derived type has > maxInclusive="10". I'm not sure where this is in the spec or if it's allowed to > redefine maxInclusive although maxExclusive is set to fixed. I've found this in > the definition for maxExclusive [1]: > > "It is an _error_ for both _maxInclusive_ and _maxExclusive_ to be specified in > the same derivation step of a datatype definition." > > In the above example maxInclusive and maxExclusive are not in the same > derivation step so I guess it's valid (then again maybe not...) Eddie, Ugg.. you are right-- That's what I get for going to quick-- I misread the question-- I thought he was asking if it was allowable to modify the maxExclusive in a derivation once it had been fixed. I missed that part about In/Ex. Either way you are right. Thanks for the catch! Jeff Rafter Defined Systems http://www.defined.net XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 03:04:33 UTC