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

Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Jun 2002 22:27:57 +0100
To: John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com>
Cc: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>, peej@mindspring.com, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bn0u1cxpe.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com> writes:

> It seems like section 3.14.6, "Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation
> OK (Simple)", of XML Schema Structures Part 1 doesn't allow for atomic
> restrictions, which of course the sForS must do, so it would seem there
> would have to be a special case for it.

I've just re-read it, and the clauses all seem to be satisfied in the
case in hand:
  2.1 is satisfied, because 'restriction' is not being passed in as a
  parameter, as it were;
  2.2 is satisfied, because 2.2.1 is satisfied.

What am I missing?

Note I am _not_ arguing that because these definitions are in the
sForS the primitive builtins are really derived, or that the
definitions in the sForS are sufficient -- these definitions are in
the sForS for completeness and documentation purposes, not because
they have real semantic bite: all the primitive builtins have
idiosyncratic semantics which is specified in the prose of the
relevant sub-section of the REC.

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 Tuesday, 11 June 2002 17:28:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:31 GMT