- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 25 Oct 2001 09:44:52 +0100
- To: mhuffman@ca.ibm.com
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Sorry for the long delay in replying to you.
mhuffman@ca.ibm.com writes:
> Please consider the following example:
>
> <xsd:complexType name="baseType">
> <xsd:attribute name="attrib1" type="xsd:string" use="prohibited"/>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
> <xsd:complexType name="restrictedType">
> <xsd:complexContent>
> <xsd:restriction base="baseType">
> <xsd:attribute name="attrib1" type="xsd:string" use
> ="required"/>
> </xsd:restriction>
> </xsd:complexContent>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
> According to [1], 2.1.1 this is a valid restriction since 2.1.1.1 and
> 2.1.1.2 are both true. I could also have used use="optional" in my
> "restrictedType" and this would be valid as per 2.1.1 as well since 2.1.1.1
> would still be true.
The WG considered your point, and concluded that you had misunderstood
one aspect of the spec. and no erratum was required:
The restriction is disallowed because _at the component level_ the
base type has no attribute of the relevant name.
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 Thursday, 25 October 2001 04:44:05 UTC