- From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:26:16 +0100
- To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
2008/10/8 Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>: >> >> I'm looking at a machine generate schema which contains this: >> >> <xs:complexType name="foo"> >> <xs:simpleContent> >> <xs:extension base="xs:string"> >> </xs:extension> >> </xs:simpleContent> >> </xs:complexType> >> >> That's just the same as type="xs:string" isn't it? >> > > Not quite. It's a complex type rather than a simple type. It validates the > same content as xs:string, but it can be extended and restricted (and > unioned and listed...) in different ways from xs:string. It's likely to > behave differently when you do Java data binding, and it's certainly > different when you do type-aware XQuery and XSLT. Different in a good way or different in a bad way? :) Depending on the answer to that, I'm wondering if instead of using type="xs:string" it would be worthwhile to have type="myString" with: <xs:complexType name="myString"> <xs:simpleContent> <xs:extension base="xs:string"/> </xs:simpleContent> </xs:complexType> -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 14:26:52 UTC