- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 13 Nov 2001 14:46:00 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Mike_Leditschke@nemmco.com.au, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes: > I think it's all OK until we get to point 7 in that list: > > 7 R's {type definition} is validly derived given {extension, list, > union} from B's {type definition} as defined by Type Derivation OK > (Complex) (§3.4.6) or Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6), as > appropriate. > > NOTE: The above constraint on {type definition} means that in > deriving a type by restriction, any contained type definitions > must themselves be explicitly derived by restriction from the > corresponding type definitions in the base definition. > > The note clarifies the matter - the Container element's type > definition in RestrictedType must be an explicit restriction of its > type in BaseType. They're anonymous types, so there's no explicit > restriction, so the schema component constraint isn't satisfied, so > the schema isn't valid. Jeni's right, and this is one of the areas where the new XSV still won't detect the error, although it should in principle do so. 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 Tuesday, 13 November 2001 09:52:24 UTC