Re: SubstitutionGroup / Derivation Clarification

> Do these three parts of the schema work together? In particular can
> the role, remark, and accept elements legally be in a
> substitutionGroup with the contextElement as its head (even though
> their types are not derived from contextType)?

Elements have to have a type derived from the type of the head element
of their substitution group, according to "Schema Component
Constraint: Element Declaration Properties Correct" which says:

  3 If there is an {substitution group affiliation}, the {type
    definition} of the element declaration must be validly derived
    from the {type definition} of the {substitution group
    affiliation}, given the value of the {substitution group
    exclusions} of the {substitution group affiliation}, as defined in
    Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if the {type definition} is
    complex) or as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6)
    (if the {type definition} is simple).

In your example, the element declaration for the role, remark and
accept elements aren't legal because their anonymous complex type
aren't derived from contextType.
    
Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 17:20:02 UTC