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

Re: How should missing {type definitions] be interpreted?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Jun 2003 09:17:10 +0100
To: Sara Mitchell <SMitchell@Ironhide.com>
Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bd6hjr9q1.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Sara Mitchell <SMitchell@Ironhide.com> writes:

> My apologies up front if this question has been 
> answered many times. I've tried searching what 
> I can think of with no success. 
> I've read the spec and understand that if no type
> attribute is supplied and no simpleType or complexType
> child is specified then both attribute declarations
> and element declarations have a default type of 
> simple-ur-type or ur-type (respectively). 
> However, I'm still confused about how a parser should 
> interpret a schema with declarations that have no
> {type definition} specified.

But the preceding paragraph means there is _always_ a {type
definition} -- eiterh the simple ur-type or the ur-type, as you say.

> I've tried the mail 
> archives and haven't been able to find anything that
> clearly explains whether the parser should: 
> * treat the element or attribute as not being allowed
> 	to contain any data or children


> * treat the element or attribute as being allowed 
> 	to contain any data or children

Yes, because that's what the ur-type and simple ur-type mean.

  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 Thursday, 12 June 2003 04:17:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:11 UTC