- From: Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:28:20 -0800
- To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Cc: "Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
> I don't see this as being a violation. The spec does *not* say 'if > memberTypes is non-empty there cannot be a simpleType child'. It > merely says > that if memberTypes is empty there MUST be at least one simpleType child. > Does this make sense? You're right. I was misled by the parenthetical note in Section 2.5.1.3 which states: "(that is, the order of the <simpleType> children of the <union> element, or the order of the QNames in the memberTypes attribute)" Notice the word "or". It didn't state that the simpleType children and QNames should be concatenated like Section 5.1.3 does: "The type definitions resolved to by the items in the value of the memberTypes [attribute], if any, in order, followed by the type definitions corresponding to the simpleType [children], if any, in order." Jason.
Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 01:32:30 UTC