- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:08:48 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5276 ------- Comment #4 from sandygao@ca.ibm.com 2008-02-08 16:08 ------- The current rule reads: 4.3.2 Let B be the {base type definition} of the Complex Type Definition corresponding to <complexType>. B's ·content model· contains, either directly, indirectly (that is, within the {particles} of a contained model group, recursively) or ·implicitly contains· an Element Declaration whose {name} and {target namespace} are the same as those of the Element Declaration corresponding to this <element>. WG's resolution as recorded in comment #1 can be implemented as: 4.3.2 There is no <extension> ancestor between the <element> and the nearest <complexType> ancestor. Henry's suggestion given in comment #2 can be implemented as: 4.3.2 There is a <restriction> ancestor between the <element> and the nearest <complexType> ancestor, and the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] of <restriction> does not match the name of ·xs:anyType·. Another alternative (somewhere between the above 2): 4.3.2 There is a <restriction> ancestor between the <element> and the nearest <complexType> ancestor.
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 16:09:00 UTC