W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2006

Re: xsd:simpletype or <xsd:complexType with simpleContent?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:54:19 +0000
To: Dan Vint <dvint@dvint.com>
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5birspn54k.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Vint writes:

> Can someone explain these two constructs and any advantage or
> disadvantage to using one over the other?

As such they have the same validation semantics.  The extension
version can include attribute declarations.

> I see that one seems to allow extension where the other limits me to
> restriction, but I believe even with the extension definition, I could
> not extend my Type by adding additional attributes.
  ^^^

Typo?  You can extend _either_ of these types to get a complex type
defn with simple content and attributes.

ht
- -- 
 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@inf.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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDxidLkjnJixAXWBoRAtBdAJ4r8EPKu4YcSDG33agEdvpXjwpNigCdEsy1
I1IaVIMcHcf0gWxhPbiKWco=
=Mr/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 09:54:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:52 GMT