- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 09 Jan 2001 13:46:52 +0000
- To: mccaleb@eeel.nist.gov (Michael McCaleb)
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
mccaleb@eeel.nist.gov (Michael McCaleb) writes: > Dear XML Schema editor, > > Observation: > In doing a comparison between the EXPRESS data modeling language (ISO > 10303-11) and XML Schema, I noticed that in EXPRESS it is possible to > create a subtype that both is a restriction (e.g., attribute value range > restriction) of its supertype and an extension (e.g., an addition of > another attribute) of its supertype. From the expressions for simpleContent > complexContent (see below) it appears that in order to do the same thing in > XML Schema that in intermediate throw away subtype would need to be > created. > > <simpleContent > id = ID > {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}> > Content: (annotation? , (restriction | extension)) > </simpleContent> > > > <complexContent > id = ID > mixed = boolean > {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}> > Content: (annotation? , (restriction | extension)) > </complexContent> > > > Question: > Would it be worthwhile to permit both restriction and extension to be in > the same simpleContent and complexContent. We've considered this on several occasions, and concluded that the mapping is already sufficiently complex that making it _more_ complex to achieve something you can already do in two steps is not a win. Thanks, and sorry to be so long getting back to you. 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 Tuesday, 9 January 2001 08:46:56 UTC