Re: ComplexType question

Tim Shaw <tim@everserve.co.uk> writes:

> I'm a little puzzled about the Schema(2) spec (sec 4.3.3) for
> ComplexTypes - specifically where the contentType is not specified.
> The spec states that this is to be treated as a complexContent
> restriction of the ur-type definition and 'details of the mappings
> should be modified as necessary'.

You're confusing terminology here -- {content type} is a property of
the Complex Type Definition component (abstract) and is always
present.

At the XML Representation level, the <complexType> element has either
<simpleContent>, <complexContent> or a content model+attributes as its 
content.  The latter case is simple short for

  <xs:complexType>
   <xs:complexContent>
    <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
     ...
    </xs:restriction>
   </xs:complexContent>
  </xs:complexType>

> My question is : Should I be able to handle a '<restriction ...' (which
> doesn't seem to fit the XML syntax definition for ComplexType) - or can
> I assume that there is no (further) restriction/extension for this
> ComplexType?

So no, you can't, there already is one, as above.

> On another note, is there a published set of .xsd's which check
> conformance to the Schema spec(1&2).

Yes, insofar as a schema can do this.  It's at the namespace URI
(http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema, which redirects to
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema.xsd)

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-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/

Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 04:40:41 UTC