Re: restriction can have simple type content though base attribute is required?

Hi,
I am talking about <restriction> within <simpleType>, and this is still not
clear for me.
I just checked the other possibility and now I have an additional
question:
<restriction> within <simpleContent> has no required attribute "base" in
the schema for schemas,
still this is marked as a mandatory (bold) attribute in 3.4.
For <restriction> within <simpleType>, this is quite the other way round.
What do I miss?

Best regards,
  Holger
_________________________

Holger Joukl
LBBW
2342 Z - IT/Org II Handel
Tel. +49 (711) 124 - 7078
_________________________

> Re: restriction can have simple type content though base attribute is required?
>
> Holger.Joukl@LBBW.de writes:
>
> > Hi there,
> > I wonder why a simple type <restriction> can have anonymous simple type as
> > its content;
> > it seems to me that, as there is always the "base" attribute (it is
> > declared "required" in
> > the schema for schemas), this is obolete or even ambiguous.
>
> Are you talking about <restriction> within <simpleContent> or
> <restriction> within <simpleType> -- they have different types.
>
> 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 Thursday, 6 September 2001 08:45:38 UTC