- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:42:01 +0000
- To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sorry not to have replied to your earlier posting more quickly. "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes: > [W]hen I try to process the XML Schema [3] produced by the UAProf > drafting committee XML Schema tools report errors as the schema uses > anySimpleType. > > Please can you tell me whether using anySimpleType in this way is legal? No, it isn't. > Despite reviewing the specs and your issue list, I am afraid I am still > confused? I suspect that E1-22 [4] in the errata for XML Schema is intended > to clarify this but I'm afraid the decision is not clear to me? E1-22 doesn't change this fact, which has been true from the beginning. It does clarify it a bit: "Also, change the next paragraph (the next-to-the-last in [section 3.14.1]) as follows: The simple ur-type definition must not be named as the base type definition of any user-defined atomic simple type definitions: as it has no constraining facets, this would be incoherent." This section is non-normative -- the normative expression of this constraint is in 3.14.6: "Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple) The appropriate case among the following must be true: 1 If the {variety} is atomic, then all of the following must be true: 1.1 The {base type definition} must be an atomic simple type definition or a built-in primitive datatype." The simple ur-type definition (anySimpleType) is neither an atomic simple type definition or a built-in primitive, so it can't be the base type definition of a user-defined atomic type definition, which is what you try to oo in your schema document [3]. A quick glance suggests you could base your type definitions on the xs:token type and get what you want. Regarding Jane Hunter's query [5], I can't immediately put my hands on my reply, if indeed I made one at the time, but I would say now that a) what she wants to do _is_ OK and b) it's not at all the same as what you're doing -- she's defining a _complex_ type that _extends_ aST by allowing attributes, which is altogether different from trying to define a _simple_ type by _restricting_ aST. ht > I note Jane Hunter [5] has also asked the same question, although in > a different context, so perhaps you can point me to your reply? > > [3] > http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/profiles/uaprof/xmlschema-20030226 > [5] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0091 -- 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 Friday, 5 December 2003 07:42:03 UTC