- 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