- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Jan 2001 15:11:30 +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: > "Henry S. Thompson" wrote: > <snip> > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#coss-ct > > -- > > > > Sorry, I must admit I'm having trouble finding the relevant section. > Is it clause 1.1.5 (with the Note)? Is it saying that if you > re-order your ancestors in any order then the complexType still > needs to be a valid extension of its new base type??? This would > plug the loophole of extending a restriction of a type with final = > extension,.... but I don't think that is what 1.1.5 is saying. It's 1.1.4 that is relevant, if I remember your initial question correctly. 1.1.4 Either the {content type} of the {base type definition} and the {content type} of the complex type definition itself must be the same simple type definition, or else the {content type} of the complex type definition itself must specify a particle and either the {content type} of the {base type definition} must be empty or 1.1.4.1 both {content type}s must be mixed or both must be element-only; 1.1.4.2 the particle of the complex type definition must be a valid extension of the {base type definition}'s particle, as defined in Particle Valid (Extension) (5.10). 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, 17 January 2001 10:11:36 UTC