Re: <attributeGroup ref="..." use="prohibited"/> not in spec

"Bob Schloss" <> writes:

> I think that schema writers would expect the same control over derived
> complexTypes whether the base type contributes attributes
> * individually (with <attribute> element info items), or
> * with a named attribute group (with <attributeGroup ref="groupName">).
> So it seems a little asymmetrical that one is allowed to write <attribute
> name="a" use="prohibited"> but one is not allowed to write <attributeGroup
> ref="groupName" use="prohibited"> to mean: none of the attributes which are
> part of that group should appear when this derived complexType is used.
> Question:
> Was this an oversight, or a conscious design choice by the working group?

Somewhere between the two :-)  We _didn't_ consider using attribute
groups in this way.  We _did_ explicitly decide to make attributes
with use='prohibit' in the complex tyhped defintiion representation
itself, i.e. as children of <restriction>, the only way to get rid of
an inherited definition.

I'll be happy to take your input as a suggestion for v1.1.

  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:

Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 18:27:42 UTC