Re: union of a union legal?

Thanks guys - I really appreciate it.  I will report this as a bug in msxml.
Just to reinforce the point a bit, none of the other tools/parsers report
this as an error (XMLSpy, TurboXML, XSV, Xerces, Oracle, and Sun).

Cheers,
Paul Kiel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: "Takuki Kamiya" <takuki@pacbell.net>
Cc: "Paul Kiel" <paul@xmlhelpline.com>; <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: union of a union legal?


> "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
> > 4.1.2.3 so that you will never see union in the post-expansion
> > memberTypes, which 2.5.1.3 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.
>
> 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 Monday, 4 February 2002 09:50:01 UTC