- From: <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivedesigners.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:05:38 +0200
- To: "Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
www-forms-request@w3.org wrote on 04/05/2006 01:09:44 PM: > > I've been digging into section 6.2.1 to figure out exactly how to > handle an element with mutiple type definitions on it (ie. schema, > xsi:type, bind type=""). > > My conclusion is that multiple schema types must have a "natural > inheritance hierachy". So if type X is associated to the element by > schema, and type Y is associated by bind type="", type Y needs to be > derived from type X. This might have been obvious to everyone else but > me, but I thought I'd share my "findings": > > For XForms we define the type order in section 6.2.1: > "1) An XML Schema associated with the instance data. > 2) An XML Schema xsi:type attribute in the instance data. > 3) An XForms type constraint associated with the instance data node > using XForms binding."** > [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-20060314/slice6.html#model-using-atomic] > > How schema associated types and xsi:type interact naturally belongs in > schema-land, and in section 6.1.1 we define the behaviour of bind > type="": > "The effect of this model item property is the same as placing > attribute xsi:type on the instance data." > [http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-20060314/slice6.html#model-prop-type] > > So how bind type="" mixes with other types also belongs in schema > land, which says: > "1.2.1.2.4 If there is also a processor-stipulated type definition, > the ·local type definition· must be validly derived from that type > definition given its {prohibited substitutions}, as defined in Type > Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if it is a complex type definition), > or given the empty set, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) > (§3.14.6) (if it is a simple type definition)." > [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cvc-elt] But if this is the case, then when you have an attribute of type string in your schema you can't restrict it by using a type contsraint to an URI by using anyURI? Or am I reading 'Type Derivation OK (Simple)' wrong? > > ** One can argue what exactly is meant by the introduction to the > order though: > "The set of facets associated with a model item must be determined by > the following list, as if it were processed in the given order. When > multiple datatype restrictions apply to the same model item, the > combination of all given restrictions must apply." > But if my conclusion does not hold, then there is something wrong in > section 6.1.1 (at least). > > -- > ... Allan > -------------------------------------------------- Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 12:05:39 UTC