Re: complexType derivation method

> > As I read the spec this [type named '3'] should also be valid
> > although none of the validators I tested with could validate this
> > type correctly.
>
> I demur -- XSV is happy with the attached, which is 1, 2 and 3 with
> minor typos and the 'mixed' bug fixed.

My mistake. I actually had a typo in the schema I tested with so infact all the
validators I tested with can validate this (XSV, XML Spy 4.2 and MSXML4 RTM).
Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
/Eddie

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 17:11:48 UTC