- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:34:55 +0000
- To: "Simon Cox" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Cc: <jddahl@micron.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Simon Cox" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> writes: > Re: Importing XMLSchema.xsdYes - WXS components are all available in > a schema without having to <import>. > > And as you point out, a simpleType can appear in an instance, as the > value of an xsi:type. > > But the goal is to be able to have type *definitions* (in > particular, restictions of the simple types) appear in an *instance* > document. > > For example, I'd like to be able to indicate to the processor at run > time, **in the instance**, that (for example) we have a numeric > range. So rather than inventing a new mini-schema language, I'd > like to use WXS components, for example: > > <xs:simpleType ... > > <xs:restriction base="xs:double"> > <xs:minInclusive value="45.7e9"/> > <xs:maxInclusive value="467.2e9"/> > </xs:restriction> > </xs:simpleType> > > I thought in this case it needed us to <import> the S4S into the > schema that validates the instance. I think I understand your scenario -- it would appear to be the case that different implementations treat the sForS specially in different ways, which is unfortunate but not I guess surprising. What happens if you include references to e.g. xsd:simpleType in the schema document for _your_ namespace _without_ an import? 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, 13 November 2003 03:36:09 UTC