Re: Restriction of complex types by changing minOccurs

Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:

> I think it's all OK until we get to point 7 in that list:
> 
>   7 R's {type definition} is validly derived given {extension, list,
>     union} from B's {type definition} as defined by Type Derivation OK
>     (Complex) (§3.4.6) or Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6), as
>     appropriate.
> 
>     NOTE: The above constraint on {type definition} means that in
>     deriving a type by restriction, any contained type definitions
>     must themselves be explicitly derived by restriction from the
>     corresponding type definitions in the base definition.
> 
> The note clarifies the matter - the Container element's type
> definition in RestrictedType must be an explicit restriction of its
> type in BaseType. They're anonymous types, so there's no explicit
> restriction, so the schema component constraint isn't satisfied, so
> the schema isn't valid.

Jeni's right, and this is one of the areas where the new XSV still
won't detect the error, although it should in principle do so.

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, 13 November 2001 09:52:24 UTC