- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:41:15 +0100
- To: marktt@excite.com
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
"Mark Thomson" <marktt@excite.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Can any one tell me why <simpleType> is among the children of
> <restriction> when <restriction> is a child of <simpleContent>
> (Section 3.4.2 in Part 1)? The required base attribute of
> <restriction> specifies the base type which is being restricted. I
> can't understand why there is an optional <simpleType> after the
> <annotation>?
Consider what's involved here -- you have a complex base type def'n,
which itself has simple content. Suppose that simple content is of
type xs:decimal. Now you want a new complex type def'n, restricting
that one, with simple content xs:integer. You need to point to _two_
def'ns. So you do
<xs:complexType name="derived">
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:restriction base="my:base">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:integer">
. . .
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
Hope this helps.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-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/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2003 04:41:16 UTC