- 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>
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 No. > * 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. 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 Thursday, 12 June 2003 04:17:12 UTC