- From: <Mike_Leditschke@nemmco.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 02:35:34 +1000
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
In section 4.6 of the primer, two statements are made... 1. "Elements in a substitution group must have the same type as the head element, or they can have a type that has been derived from the head element's type" then later 2. "..when an instance document contains element substitutions whose types are derived from those of their head elements, it is not necessary to identify the derived types using the xsi:type construction..." I think the wording of the second is tripping me up a bit given that, assuming the first statement, I can't see how you'd ever get a case where the second didn't apply, that is, an instance document containing element substitutions, whose types WEREN'T derived from those of the head etc and hence who WOULD have to use the xsi:type attribute. Is the intent to say, if you use an element substitution, the rules about providing xsi:type attributes in instance documents don't apply? On a similar vein, it appears that for substitution groups to work, validators are capable of working out "for themselves" which particular substitution group element has been provided in an instance document without the instance author explicitly telling the validator. It seems a small step to ask why then, I need to provide xsi:type attributes at all, given that the validator knows the set of types that could possbily be used i.e. those derived from the base type used in the schema defining the instance document. What additional "magic" is enabled by explictly tying a series of related elements (and by implication types) together via substitutionGroup attribute I've probably gone off the road completely somewhere. A pointer to the skid marks would be appreciated. Regards Michael
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 12:36:11 UTC