RE: reason for invalidity of stZ009?

XSD 1.1 is clear that types cannot be derived directly from
xs:anySimpleType. See 3.16.1

As described in Type Definition Hierarchy (§2.2.1.1), every simple type
definition is a ·restriction· of some other simple type (the {base type
definition}), which is ·xs:anySimpleType· if and only if the type definition
in question is ·xs:anyAtomicType· or a list or union type definition which
is not itself derived by restriction from a list or union respectively. A
type definition has ·xs:anyAtomicType· as its {base type definition} if and
only if it is one of the primitive datatypes. 

I don't believe this is stated explicitly in XSD 1.0, though I think one can
argue that it isn't allowed as an indirect consequence of other rules.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-schema-testsuite-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-schema-testsuite-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> Of Tobias Koenig
> Sent: 06 November 2008 10:35
> To: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org
> Subject: reason for invalidity of stZ009?
> 
> 
> Hej,
> 
> why exactly is that schema (part of MS-SimpleType tests) wrong?
> It makes sense that derivation by restriction from 
> xs:AnySimpleType is not allowed, but where is that mentioned 
> in the schema spec?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Ciao,
> Tobias
>

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 22:32:51 UTC