- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 21 Feb 2001 15:21:55 +0000
- To: Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au>
- Cc: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au> writes: > I'm curious, what will be the behaviour for the following definition > > <complexType> > <attribute name="foo" use="prohibited"/> > <anyAttribute/> > </complexType> > > Will this satisfy constraints on schemas in the next working draft? Yes. > If so, can I use foo in an instance? Yes. > Ie does the prohibition just remove the attribute from my use pairs > available, or does it specifically prevent its use in an instance, > even by a wildcard? The former. > On a side note, is it mentioned in any of the rules that the below is ambiguous > and not allowed? > <complexType> > <attribute name="foo"/> > <anyAttribute/> > </complexType> > ct-props-correct.3 says I can't have identical attribute use pairs, but nothing > about an attribute use pair being in the namespace of the wildcard. > cvc-complex-type.1.3 says to match an attribute infoItem look in the pairs OR > wildcard. What if it's in both? It's not disallowed. There can of course be only one attribute of the name 'foo' on any given element, that's an XML 1.0 well-formedness constraint. The REC should make clear that the explicit declaration takes precedence over the wildcard -- it implies that indirectly now, but it won't hurt to make it more explicit. 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 Wednesday, 21 February 2001 10:21:59 UTC