- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 04 Oct 2001 19:09:26 +0100
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
There's a contradiction between chema Representation Constraint: Complex Type Definition Representation OK [1] and clause 5.1.2 of Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex) [2]: 5.1 If the {content type} of the complex type definition is a simple type definition, then one of the following must be true: 5.1.1 The {content type} of the {base type definition} must be a simple type definition of which the {content type} is a valid restriction as defined in Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple) (3.14.6). 5.1.2 The {base type definition} must be mixed and have a particle which is emptiable as defined in Particle Emptiable (3.9.6). In the face of this contradiction, implementations are free to go either way. In due course the WG will have to resolve the contradiction. I will argue that 5.1.2 should stay, and a clause added to the mapping and XML representation sections to accommodate this. It seems inconsistent to a) allow mixed content elements to have defaults; b) allow mixed content types to be restricted to empty; c) *not* allow mixed content types to be restricted to text-only with a type. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#src-ct [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#coss-ct -- 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 Thursday, 4 October 2001 14:08:45 UTC