- From: Tobias Koenig <tobias.koenig@trolltech.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:24:08 +0100
- To: Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
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,
Tobias
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 08:23:48 UTC