- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:47:44 +0100
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Hi Dare, > <xs:complexType name="A"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="f"/> > <xs:choice> > <xs:choice minOccurs="1"> > <xs:element name="a"/> > <xs:element name="b"/> > </xs:choice> > <xs:sequence minOccurs="0"> > <xs:element name="a1"/> > <xs:element name="b1"/> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:choice> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:complexType> > > <xs:complexType name="B"> > <xs:complexContent> > <xs:restriction base="A"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="f"/> > <xs:choice> > <xs:element name="a"/> > <xs:element name="b1"/> > </xs:choice> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:restriction> > </xs:complexContent> > </xs:complexType> Just looking at it, I don't think so. Under a restriction, it shouldn't be possible to come up with a content model that's valid for the restricted type but isn't valid for the base type, and it is possible in this case: <f /> <b1 /> is valid for B, but isn't valid for A (in A, every b1 must be preceded by an a1). Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 13:47:45 UTC