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

RE: catA014.xsd (test suite)

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:43:55 -0800
Message-ID: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05573BBC@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com>, "Schema XML" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Interesting...

In the linked email, Henry states 

	So in fact all the following are allowed:

	final="#all"        (first branch of the union)
	final=""            (2nd branch of the union, length 0)
	final="extension"   (2nd branch of the union, length 1)
	final="restriction" (2nd branch of the union, length 1)
	final="extension restriction"   (2nd branch of the union, length
2)

However looking in the normative section in schema for Schema(sForS) in
appendix A of XML Schema Structures recommendation and DataTypes
recommendation we see the base type "xs:derivationControl" derived from
"xs:NMTOKEN" which does not allow "" (see production for nmtoken[0] in
xml 1.0 shown below) . So how can  final="" be allowed?


Name 		::= (Letter | '_' | ':') ( NameChar)*
Names       ::=  Name (#x20 Name)* 
Nmtoken     ::= (NameChar)+
  

Secondly, athough the XML Schema WG has decided to make the sForS a
normative reference this does not mean that it should define the
behavior of the prose version of the recommendation. I am currently not
a 100% sure that the prose version of the recommendation specifies that
block="restriction restriction" is a valid attribute for a <complexType>
although the XML Representation Summary of the complexType Element
Information Item[1] may be implying this with

	block = (#all | List of (extension | restriction)) 

 
[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-2e-20000814#NT-Nmtoken
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-type

-- 
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #5
The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the
Mountain
of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity.
It 
will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is
my 
one weakness.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stanley Guan [mailto:stanley.guan@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:37 PM
> To: Schema XML
> Subject: catA014.xsd (test suite)
> 
> 
> According to Henry's resply on my email dated on 2/27/02
> (see 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2002Feb/0205.html),
> it seems to me that the following schema document is valid:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>  <xsd:complexType block="restriction restriction" 
> name="foo"/> </xsd:schema>
> 
> So, the expected result for catA014.xsd on 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2001/05/xmlschema-test-collection/result
-ms-complexType.htm
should be valid!
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 22:44:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:30 GMT