W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > April 2003

List of union

From: Michael Marchegay <mmarcheg@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:42:34 -0500
Message-ID: <000b01c2f958$647e9210$8c01a8c0@mendossa>
To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>


My understanding of the concept of list, as defined in XML Schema
recommendation, would make me think that a list whose {item type definition}
has the variety union is valid only if the union does not contain any simple
type definitions having the variety list among its {member type

I looked in the XML Schema Part 1 and 2 for some text confirming that, but I
haven't found it.  I also looked in the archives of xmlschema-dev list for
an explanation, and I have found confirmation of my hypothesis, but none of
the answers refere to a clause stating it clearly.  Is this restriction
explained somewhere in the recommendation?


Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 15:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:00 UTC