- From: Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:39:33 +1100
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Henry S. Thompson" wrote: > Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au> writes: > > > Hi all, > > Does someone understand clause 1.6 of > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-NameAndTypeOK ? > > > > "R's { type definition } is validly derived given {extension } from B's > > {type definition} as defined by Type Derivation OK (Complex)(5.11) or > > Type Derivation OK(Simple)(5.12) as appropriate". > > This means that the derivation can't involve {extension} -- it's as if > B had had block='extension'. The point is that to derive by > restriction, the type derivation path can't involve extension. Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately i admit I'm still confused. Having B's block='extension' just means that substitute groups of B can't have an extended type of B. This has no bearing on its relationship with R. R and B are both the Element Declarations already obtained after checking that they were validly substituted for (say) Q and A respectively. What is the link from B to R with the block attribute? thanks again, mick.
Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 19:39:41 UTC