Re: More on xs:anySimpleType

a) Can I assume that your question is not whether a type can derive from
anySimpleType, but whether a schema can reference anySimpleType?  For
example:
<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
http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-errata


"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>
cc:
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
can
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

and

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
find
any public Errata list on the W3C website - at least not referenced at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema

Cheers

Hugh
----- 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

http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfiur-type

and

 http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfiS4SanySimpleType

________________________________

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
find
the following at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#section-Built-in-Simple-Type-Definition

There is a simple type definition nearly equivalent to the simple version
of
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>
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
{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·
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-null>


But I'm not sure that this entirely answers the question - the words
"nearly
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.

Thanks

Hugh Wallis

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