- From: Stefan Wachter <Stefan.Wachter@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:05:08 +0200 (MEST)
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Hi Jeni, thanks for the clarification. I changed my code. --Stefan PS: Is it allowed to first prohibit an attribute and to introduce it again later? The spec. says that attribute declarations with use="prohibited" are nothing at all. This suggests that a type does not know if an attribute is prohibited or simply not present. Therefore adding an attribute after it was prohibited should be allowed. Sounds strange, doesn't it? > > Hi Stefan, > > > I thought that if no type is specified for a restricted attribute > > than the type of the attribute in the base type is used. > > Unfortunately, I could not find a definition in the XML > > specification saying this. > > No, I don't think that it does. When you define a new complex type by > restriction, you either inherit the entire attribute use or you don't > inherit it at all (in which case there may be a replacement attribute > use defined in the derived type). > > > However, the schema for schemas makes frequent use of this copying > > behaviour. For example in the definition of a local simple type it > > restricts the name attribute by the following declaration: > > > > <xs:attribute name="name" use="prohibited"> > > Ah, but that's different. All this is doing is *prohibiting* the > (whole) attribute use, preventing it from being inherited from the > base type and hence omitting it from the derived type. > > Cheers, > > Jeni > > --- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com/ >
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 08:05:44 UTC