- From: Joey Coyle <joey@xcoyle.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:02:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
thanks Jeni,
I finally understand substitution groups. Even though that works, it
would be convenient if they added a way to restrict the wildcard method,
because it is simple and is the way most programmers think about making
arrays of a Parent class, which allows the array to have any subtype of
that parent. And then you would't have to declare global elements. Maybe
something like this ...
<complexType name="basetype">
<sequence>
<any restriction="myType" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
This would allow only a sequence of "myType" or restrictions of "myType",
Then this would be valid ...
<complexType name="newtype">
<complexContent>
<restriction base="my:basetype">
<sequence>
<element name="e1" type="myTypeRestriction1"/>
<element name="e2" type="myTypeRestriction2"/>
<element name="e3" type="myTypeRestriction3"/>
</sequence>
</restriction>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
thanks again,
joey
At 12:30 PM 3/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Joey,
>
> > I read in this list that this first example is OK, but is there a
> > way to do this with a type other than "any". Instead of any, I would
> > like my own type, then I would like to substitute derived types as
> > is done here. My example is after the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and
> > I hope it is valid.
>
>I'm afraid that what you have definitely isn't valid. When you do a
>restriction, elements that are valid according to the restricted type
>must also be valid according to the base type. In your case, if you
>had:
>
> <foo>
> <e1 />
> </foo>
>
>which is valid according to your newtype:
>
> > <complexType name="newtype">
> > <complexContent>
> > <restriction base="my:basetype">
> > <sequence>
> > <element name="e1" type="myTypeRestriction"/>
> > <element name="e2" type="myTypeRestriction2" minOccurs="0"/>
> > <element name="e3" type="myTypeRestriction3" minOccurs="0"/>
> > </sequence>
> > </restriction>
> > </complexContent>
> > </complexType>
>
>it wouldn't be valid according to your base type, which only allows
>'item' elements within the element:
>
> > <complexType name="basetype">
> > <sequence>
> > <element name="item" type="myType" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> > </sequence>
> > </complexType>
>
>The reason that you can do the restriction with the xs:any wildcard
>is that the base type then allows any element.
>
>What you could do, however, is create a substitution group for the
>four elements, with 'item' as the head element. The elements have to
>be declared globally, as follows:
>
><element name="item" type="myType" />
><element name="e1" type="myTypeRestriction" substitutionGroup="item" />
><element name="e2" type="myTypeRestriction2" substitutionGroup="item" />
><element name="e3" type="myTypeRestriction3" substitutionGroup="item" />
>
>[Note that myTypeRestriction must be derived from MyType.]
>
>You can then define your base type by referring to that item element:
>
><complexType name="basetype">
> <sequence>
> <element ref="item" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> </sequence>
></complexType>
>
>and likewise your newtype by referring to the global declarations of
>the other elements:
>
><complexType name="newtype">
> <complexContent>
> <restriction base="my:basetype">
> <sequence>
> <element ref="e1" />
> <element ref="e2" minOccurs="0"/>
> <element ref="e3" minOccurs="0"/>
> </sequence>
> </restriction>
> </complexContent>
></complexType>
>
>This works because if you take account of the substitution group, the
>basetype type definition is equivalent to:
>
><complexType name="basetype">
> <sequence>
> <choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
> <element ref="item" />
> <element ref="e1" />
> <element ref="e2" />
> <element ref="e3" />
> </choice>
> </sequence>
></complexType>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jeni
>
>---
>Jeni Tennison
>http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 14:11:57 UTC