- From: Bruno Chatel <bcha@chadocs.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:39:10 +0100
- To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "patt" <pattar@tireme.fr>, <bcha@chadocs.com>
Thanks for this response, > > I would like to know if the following compleType defintion is allowed: > > > > <xs:complexType name="unit"> > > <xs:simpleContent> > > <xs:extension base="xs:integer"/> > > </xs:simpleContent> > > </xs:complexType> > > Yes, why not ;=) ? > > > It seems to be equivalent than : > > > > <xs:simpleType name="unit"> > > <xs:restriction base="xs:integer"/> > > <xs:simpleType> > > Not really, simple and complex types are very different beasts (despite > similarities which are IMO exagerated in the W3C Recommendation) and the > kind of derivations which you will be able to do on those types is > different. My initial understanding of the difference was that simpleType was used for data (i.e. content of leaf nodes) and complexType for "structured" content model (including attribute definitions). So, it means that the way to decide if I use a simpleType or a complexType for defining "unit" is driven by the usage (in term of derivation) of it ? And not by the content model it describes ? Then imagine that I want to use unit for 1- apply a facet (for example maxExclusive) for defining a particular limited unit AND 2- define a complexType in an other schema (importing this one) by redefine mecanism I can't do this because : 1- implies to use a simpleType 2- implies to use a complexType Regards, -- bruno -- Bruno Chatel Tel : (+33)[0] 4 96 11 14 57 Email : bcha@chadocs.com http://www.chadocs.com ----------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 14:37:11 UTC