- From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:23:45 +0100
- To: "Mark Ingram" <mingram@atreus-systems.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Having just checked the schema for schemas there is no difference between the two. They both have the same content model; <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="xs:annotation" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:group ref="xs:typeDefParticle" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:group ref="xs:attrDecls" /> </xs:sequence> In the prose the latter example ( extension ) has an unnecessary extra set of parentheses. Martin Gudgin DevelopMentor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Ingram" <mingram@atreus-systems.com> To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 4:08 PM Subject: Content models differ syntactically but not (?) semantically > I wish to have the difference between the following two content models > clarified. > > Taken from the table-section headed > 'When the <complexContent> alternative is chosen, the following elements > are relevant ...' > in the table entitled > 'XML Representation Summary: complexType Element Information Item' > in section 3.4.2 'XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions:' > > <restriction > base = QName > id = ID > {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}> > Content: (annotation?, (group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute > | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?)) > </restriction> > > <extension > base = QName > id = ID > {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}> > Content: (annotation?, ((group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute > | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))) > </extension> > > Thank you, > Mark Ingram. >
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 11:25:28 UTC