Re: equivClass in element vs. complexType

"Eric Rehm" <rehm@singingfish.com> writes:

> It seems odd that I cannot declare the equivClass in a complexType
> declaration.
> Perhaps I am thinking too much like a the Java/C++ developer that I am, but
> would rather define this "inheritance" when I was defining the type, i.e.,
> the
> <complexType>.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand the difference between the <complexType> and
> <element>
> declarations?

Sorry not to reply sooner, busy with recent internal release.  I'm not 
sure I understand the question.  Equivalence class define a
substitution set for elements:  if <sub> is declared with <super> as its
equivalence class exemplar, then where references to <super> appear in 
content models, <sub> appear as well as <super> in instances.

The closest parallel for type definitions is xsi:type -- if _derived_
is derived from _base_, then where elements declared as of type _base_ 
appear in content models, that element may appear in instances, but
with "xsi:type='_derived_'", and it will be validated by _derived_.

The reason we require the signal in the instance was to avoid
open-ended back-tracking at parse time -- if elements were allowed to
take any derived type of there declared type, a parser might have to
try them all until it found one that worked.

Hope this helps -- if it doesn't, please supply a more specific
example.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 04:32:05 UTC