- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 06 Apr 2001 10:10:23 +0100
- To: "Michael Zoratti" <m.zoratti@nortelnetworks.com>
- Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
"Michael Zoratti" <m.zoratti@nortelnetworks.com> writes:
> I appreciate you response.
>
> The definition in the Schema Primer (October 2000) states that
> "Elements in a substitution group must have the same type as the head element,
>
> or they can have a type that has been derived from the head element's type"
>
> Now I understand that the simpleTypes I define OrderState and
> NewOrderState (in the example in my document) are two separate types.
> But they are two simpleTypes both based on strings. The fact that they are
> both
> based on strings, can this be a loose example of the definition above.
No, sorry.
> On a minor note, my schemas do validate using XML SPY 3.5, but then
> that could be an oversight by XMLSpy. Bottom line if it violates the
> Specification, then it should be incorrect. Based on my above
> statements, does it violate the Specification.
Yes.
> If it violates the Specification, then I could also do something like this:
>
> <element name="BaseState" type="string"/>
>
> <element name="State" type="sa:OrderState" substitutionGroup="sa:BaseState"/>
> <element name="NewState" type="sa:NewOrderState"
> substitutionGroup="sa:BaseState"/>
Yes, that will work.
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, 6 April 2001 05:10:22 UTC