Re: <restriction> is not actually a restriction

> You're right -- I could have sworn we put something in about that, but
> I don't see it -- I guess I'm thinking of defaults, which we did
> catch.  This could/should perhaps be fixed independently of revisiting 
> restriction in general.

Thanks for the info.

There is another similar problem:

<xs:complexType name="B">
  <xs:anyAttribute namespace="#all" processContents="lax"/>
  <xs:attribute name="foo" type="xs:integer" use="optional"/>
</xs:complexType>

<xs:complexType name="D">
  <xs:complexContent>
    <xs:restriction base="B">
      <xs:attribute name="foo" type="xs:integer" use="prohibited" />
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>


Even though @foo is prohibited explicitly, it is allowed because it's
accepted by the #all wildcard. <XXX foo="str"/> is not valid with
respect to B, but is valid with respect to D.


regards,
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI                          +1 650 786 0721
Sun Microsystems                   kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com