- From: David Brown (WEBDATA) <davebrow@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:46:03 -0800
- To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <81EDEEE0355CB24380319632393FD56D01661E67@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> The primer has an example of deriving a complex type, "ConfirmedItems", from an existing complex type, "ipo:Items".
>
> The base complex type has an element defined locally with a locally defined type.
>
> The derived type is attempting to restrict the occurance of the base's locally defined element.
>
> There is a note in the Structures Spec, Schema Component Constraint: Particle Restriction OK (Elt:Elt -- NameAndTypeOK), stating
> NOTE: The above constraint on {type definition} <\l > means that in deriving a type by restriction, any contained type definitions must themselves be explicitly derived by restriction from the corresponding type definitions in the base definition.
> The not seems to say that the type associated with the elements must also be derived from the base, yet the Primer's example is working with only locally defined types.
>
> Question1: Is the Primer example in 4.4 a valid representation of a restriction?
> Question2: For the purposes of derivation, are two local elements with locally defined types supposed to be treated as identical or should the element be defined globally and then referred to?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Brown
> * Software Design Engineer/Test
> * davebrow@microsoft.com
> * (425) 705 - 0804
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 14:47:09 UTC