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

Re: xsi:type and unions

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:05:11 +0100
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bznhv1cag.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:

> Is there any text in the W3C XML Schema recommendation that makes the
> following instance invalid according to the schema below. 
>
> <s xmlns="b64" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" 
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> xsi:type="xs:hexBinary">1234</s>
>
>
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> targetNamespace="b64" 
> xmlns:b64="b64"> 
>         <xs:element name="s" type="b64:myType2"/> 
>
>         <xs:simpleType name="myType"> 
>                 <xs:union memberTypes="xs:base64Binary xs:hexBinary
> xs:NOTATION"/> 
>         </xs:simpleType> 
>
>         <xs:simpleType name="myType2"> 
>                 <xs:restriction base="b64:myType"> 
>                         <xs:pattern value="abcd"/> 
>                 </xs:restriction> 
>         </xs:simpleType> 
> </xs:schema>

I don't think so.  That is, the REC says xsi:type can name a member
type of a declared union [1], clause 2.2.4.  No mention of facets on
the base.  Other related issues have been raised, but this one
probably merits adding to the issues list -- please mail to
www-xml-schema-comments.

What's your opinion as to the correct answer, and why?

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-st-derived-ok
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-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 Wednesday, 27 August 2003 09:06:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:39 GMT