- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:39:45 +0100
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk ((Henry S. Thompson))
- CC: "Aung Aung" <aaung@microsoft.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Henry,
>> 1. There were some confusion in the beginning about the usage of
>> anySimpleType. After some clarification, we allow anySimpleType as
>> a type name. However, the spec also said "simple *ur-type
>> definition*
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-urType#key-urType> must not
>> be named as the *base type definition*
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#st-base_type_definition#st-base_type_
>> definition> of any user-defined simple types: as it has no
>> constraining facets, this would be incoherent." So, how are all the
>> primitive data types have restriction facets on anySimpleType. Spes
>> does not say how it allows it. Do we have to special-case all
>> primitive dataType as restrict-able from anySimpleType exclusive to
>> for parsing xsd4xsd (for such confusing issue, spec should implicit
>> about how to approach it.)?
>
> Sorry for the confusion -- you're right that the inclusion in the
> sForS of the 'information only' definitions of the builtin primitive
> datatypes is problematic. I would note in our defense that the quote
> above says you can't have anySimpleType as the {base type def} of
> and _user-defined_ types, but I agree that taken as a user schema
> doc., the published sForS violates this constraint.
Could you point out where this constraint is? The only constraint that
I could find was in the non-normative section 3.14.1 of the Structures
Rec
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Simple_Type_Definition_details).
I can't find a similar restriction in the normative Datatypes Rec...?
Thanks,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 04:39:50 UTC