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

Re: What are complexContent restrictions made for ?

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:34:17 +0100
Message-ID: <10329711630.20020523113417@jenitennison.com>
To: zze-MARCHEGAY Michael stagiaire FTRD/DTL/LAN <michael.marchegay@rd.francetelecom.com>
CC: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hi MichaŽl,

> So a complexContent is usefull only when used in a type declaration,
> isn't it ?

You can only use xs:complexContent within a type definition, so yes.

But from your example, it looks like you meant within a *named* type
definition as opposed to an anonymous one?

> If I use one in a "inline" type definition for an element:
> <xs:element>
>   <xs:complexType>
>     <xs:complexContent>
>       <xs:restriction base="personName">
>         <xs:sequence>
>           <xs:element name="surname"/> 
>         </xs:sequence>
>       </xs:restriction>
>     </xs:complexContent>
>   </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> this has **exactly** the same signification as if I write 
> <xs:element>
>   <xs:complexType>
>    <xs:sequence>
>      <xs:element name="surname"/> 
>    </xs:sequence>
>   </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> isn't it ?

Assuming that the xs:element elements in the above had a name
attribute with a value of 'person' (to create a person element)...

It depends on what you're using to process the instance document
that's been validated against the schema. If you were using XSLT/XPath
2.0 (or XQuery) for example, then in the first case:

  person instance of element of type personName

would be true, because a person element's type would be derived from
'personName', whereas in the second case it would be false because it
wasn't. Also if you did a cast like:

  treat as element of type personName (person)

then this would work be OK if you used the first element declaration,
but you'd get a static error if you used the second element
declaration because it's impossible to cast an element to a type if
its type isn't derived from that type.

On the other hand, in terms of just running a validator over the
instance and getting a yes/no answer about whether the instance is
valid according to the schema, then yes, they're exactly the same.



Jeni Tennison
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 06:34:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:02 UTC