W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2001

Re: SubstitutionGroup / Derivation Clarification

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:20:00 +0000
Message-ID: <8913417212.20011203222000@jenitennison.com>
To: xsd@themartian.com
CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> 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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:56 UTC