- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 07 Nov 2001 09:52:40 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc: "xmlschema-dev (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com>
I don't actually see anything in the REC which blocks a simple type
definition of {variety} 'list' whose {item type definition} is not derived
from its {base type definition}'s {item type definition}. Ditto for
{variety} 'union' and {member type definitions}.
There's no way to _notate_ such a definition given the XML
Representation constraints (I don't think), but it would be easy to
allow this.
I'm not sure whether this is two errata or something for 1.1., but the
WG needs to discuss it.
--
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, 7 November 2001 04:51:48 UTC