W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > February 2003

Re: More on xs:anySimpleType

From: Morris Matsa <mmatsa@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:21:37 -0500
To: "Hugh Wallis" <hugh_wallis@hyperion.com>
Cc: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF6370C3D4.852CA06E-ON85256CD7.00150149@pok.ibm.com>

a) Can I assume that your question is not whether a type can derive from
anySimpleType, but whether a schema can reference anySimpleType?  For
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:anySimpleType" />
This includes no derivation and no type declaration, neither a local one
nor a global one.

b) I believe the errata is publically available at

"Hugh Wallis" <hugh_wallis@hyperion.com>@w3.org on 02/23/2003 07:55:09 PM

Sent by:    xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org

To:    "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Subject:    Re: More on xs:anySimpleType

Thanks Dare

These were interesting but unfortunately

a) Neither of them seems to shed any light on the legality or otherwise of
stating type="xs:anySimpletype" in general (they only confirm that types
be derived from it in the S4S but not by users) - so that still leaves open
the question of why .NET prohibits it but all other parsers I have tried
(including Microsoft's own MSXML) appear to allow it


b) The links to the resolution of the issues are on a members only part of
the W3C website, there are no links directly to the Errata and I cannot
any public Errata list on the W3C website - at least not referenced at


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
To: "Hugh Wallis" <hugh_wallis@hyperion.com>; <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, 23 February, 2003 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: More on xs:anySimpleType

There are several known issues with xs:anySimpleType I suggest reading





From: Hugh Wallis [mailto:hugh_wallis@hyperion.com]
Sent: Sun 2/23/2003 2:47 PM
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: More on xs:anySimpleType

Hit the send button a mite too fast on my previous question since I now
the following at

There is a simple type definition nearly equivalent to the simple version
the ·ur-type definition· <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-urType>
present in every schema by definition. It has the following properties:
Simple Type Definition of the Ur-Type
Property Value
{name} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#st-name> anySimpleType
{target namespace} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#st-target_namespace>
{base type definition}
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#st-base_type_definition> ·the ur-type
definition· <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#ur-type-itself>
{final} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#st-final> The empty set
{variety} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#variety> ·absent·

But I'm not sure that this entirely answers the question - the words
equivalent" are worrying as the exact impact of the use of the word "nearly
"doesn't seem to be fully explained. Again any insight would be helpful.


Hugh Wallis
Received on Sunday, 23 February 2003 23:23:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:09 UTC