Initial issues with schema for schemas

The definition for the simpleType element does not have an explicit
reference to the simpleType complexType.  I assume this is an error in the
schema for schemas and not an indication that their is an implicit typing to
an identically named type.  However, if I'm wrong, could you point out where
this behavior is described.

Restrictions of element content in complex types still looks extremely
awkward and under documented.  If I've overlooked an concise description of
how it should work, please point out the appropriate section.  Mimicing the
expanded content model up to the point of restriction would be extremely
verbose when you are tweaking something fairly deep in a content model.

Multiple context-specific defininitions of the attribute element are
declared, however they are all identical.  It would be confusing to someone
looking at a help system when they are presented with the attributeGroup
form of the attribute element, the complexType definition of element and
don't see any obvious difference.

Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2000 01:04:07 UTC