Re: Restriction of complex types by changing minOccurs

Hi there,
Xerces 1.4.3 appears to behave correctly with respect to Mike's modified
example (we may have had a bug in 1.4.1).    Mike, if you still have
problems using 1.4.3, let me know, or send mail to the Xerces mailing list.
Note that Xerces-2 doesn't have particle restriction checking yet.

Lisa.


Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>@w3.org on 11/14/2001 05:28:15 AM

Please respond to Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>

Sent by:  xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org


To:   Mike_Leditschke@nemmco.com.au
cc:   vdv@dyomedea.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Restriction of complex types by changing minOccurs


Hi Mike,

> Given your comment on the note, I proceeded to explicitly define a
> base and derived type for Container and used these in the
> corresponding Base and Restricted type, but still get the same
> error.

The schema looks fine to me. I might have missed something, but I
suspect that Xerces-J-1.4.1 has a bug. You might try using Xerces-J 2
instead?

> I suspect I still haven't quite understood. Specifically, I didn't
> understand what Eric meant by
>
> "This would limit the recursion to the top level of complex type
> definitions, which seems reasonable..."

I think he meant that when you restrict a complex type, the schema
processor doesn't keep looking down the type/element/type/element
hierarchy, expecting a (restrictive) change in the content of each
element. Instead, you have to explicity specify that an element's type
is a restriction of the base element's type.

> I would have thought that I could be an arbitrary number of element
> definitions deep, but provided the named type I use is a valid
> restriction of the one used in the base definition, I should be ok.

Yes, I think you are correct in that.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 10:20:46 UTC