Re: restriction can have simple type content though base attribute is required?

• From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
• Date: 05 Sep 2001 22:04:54 +0100
• To: Holger.Joukl@LBBW.de
• Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
• Message-ID: <f5b1yllmjrd.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Holger.Joukl@LBBW.de writes:

> Hi there,
> I wonder why a simple type <restriction> can have anonymous simple type as
> its content;
> it seems to me that, as there is always the "base" attribute (it is
> declared "required" in
> the schema for schemas), this is obolete or even ambiguous.

Are you talking about <restriction> within <simpleContent> or
<restriction> within <simpleType> -- they have different types.

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 Wednesday, 5 September 2001 17:04:26 UTC