- 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