On Wednesday 07 January 2009 17:54:12 you wrote: Hej Sandy, > Interesting... > > Are you looking at the schema 1.1 draft? Ahh yes, sorry I forgot to mention... > In 1.0, bullet 4 of "Element Declaration Properties Correct" refers to > "Type Derivation OK (Complex) (ยง3.4.6)". Neither constraint mentions the > {prohibited substitutions} property of the base type (type of the > {substitution group affiliation}). So in 1.0, your example schema is valid. > (But during instance validation, the constraint "Substitution Group OK > (Transitive)" is used, which does take into account "block" on the base > type.) > > But in 1.1, bullet 4 refers to the definition of "validly substitutable", > which takes {prohibited substitutions} of the base type into account. So in > 1.1, your example schema is invalid. I see, so I'll use the schema 1.0 spec for that part. Thank you very much for the information! Ciao, TobiasReceived on Thursday, 8 January 2009 08:23:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 March 2009 11:13:43 GMT