- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:09:50 +0100
- To: "Daplyn, Tim" <Tim.Daplyn@eu.sony.com> (by way of "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>)
- Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
"Daplyn, Tim" <Tim.Daplyn@eu.sony.com> (by way of "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>) writes: > The recommendation includes a number of attribute declarations within > <restriction>s which have only 'name' and 'use' defined e.g. > > <xs:attribute name="form" use="prohibited"/> > (in definition of topLevelAttribute) > > Xerces seems to fail this type of redefinition with the following error: > > Message: Type of attribute {0} must be validly derived from type of > attribute in base > > This seems to be based on the constraints section > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#derivation-ok-restriction > > Please does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether the following xml > is valid or not? > > <complexType name="typeB"> > <attribute name="attr" type="string" use="optional"/> > </complexType> > <complexType name="typeR"> > <complexContent> > <restriction base="typeB"> > <attribute name="attr" use="prohibited"/> > <!-- Do we _have_ to specify 'type' again? > --> > </restriction> > </complexContent> > </complexType> It's valid. The valid derivation constraint cited by Xerces is on schema _components_, but as the REC says in several places, an xml element of the form <xs:attribute name="..." use="prohibited"/> corresponds to no component at all. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-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/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 04:09:52 UTC