W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Enumeration restrictions

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Dec 2002 17:58:19 +0000
To: "Gregory M. Messner" <gmessner@breezefactor.com>
Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bel8cy3lw.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

"Gregory M. Messner" <gmessner@breezefactor.com> writes:

> Is it legal to define a restriction with enumeration and then extend with a
> restriction that contains enumerations that are not in the base restriction?
> 
> 
> base type:
> 
> <xs:simpleType name="baseType">
>   <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>     <xs:enumeration value="AccountNumber"/>
>     <xs:enumeration value="BillOfLadingNumber"/>
>     <xs:enumeration value="BuyerClaimNumber"/>
>     <xs:enumeration value="Other"/>
>   </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> 
> 
> extension:
> 
> <xs:attribute name="UsageType">
>   <xs:simpleType>
>     <xs:restriction base="baseType">
>       <xs:enumeration value="Other"/>
> 	<xs:enumeration value="Contract"/>       <!-- Not in baseType -->
> 	<xs:enumeration value="ContractNumber"/> <!-- Not in baseType -->
>     </xs:restriction>
>   </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:attribute>

Not allowed -- a restriction has to be a restriction, you can't
achieve extension this way.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 12:58:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:35 GMT