W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > February 2002

Re: union of a union legal?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 04 Feb 2002 10:39:17 +0000
To: "Takuki Kamiya" <takuki@pacbell.net>
Cc: "Paul Kiel" <paul@xmlhelpline.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bvgddttt6.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
"Takuki Kamiya" <takuki@pacbell.net> writes:

> Hi Paul,
> I think the two statements are not actually in conflict if
> you take the following two clauses into account. The trick is
> that union memberType gets expanded immediately as per
> so that you will never see union in the post-expansion
> memberTypes, which is talking about. Assuming that
> observation is correct, you should be able to specify union
> as a memberType of another union.

This is correct.  Definitions of union types in schema _documents_ may
include references to other union type definitions in the value of
their 'memberTypes' attribute; simple type definition _components_ of
variety union may include only atomic and list type definition
_components_ in their [member type definitions] property.

  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 Monday, 4 February 2002 05:39:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:58 UTC