- From: Xan Gregg <Xan.Gregg@jmp.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:10:03 -0400
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
I think you've got it right, but I can't explain the reasoning. It seems reasonable that derivation by extension results in unioning of the wildcard constraints, but I don't know why attribute groups have their wildcard attributes unioned (except for processContents, in which the first attribute wildcard wins). I can only guess that the WG realized the wildcard component was insufficient to represent the "proper" combination of the wildcards and decided to make a somewhat arbitrary approximation. xan -----Original Message----- From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:16 PM To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: Attribute Wildcards (another try) I submitted the following question a couple of weeks ago and got no response. Perhaps the people who know were on holiday, so I'll try again... Normally, if a complex type references two attribute groups, then the attributes permitted on an element are the union of those permitted by the two attribute groups. But if the two attribute groups both contain attribute wildcards, the attributes permitted are the intersection of what's allowed by the two wildcards (i.e. an attribute has to match both). However, if one complex type containing an attribute wildcard extends another complex type also containing an attribute wildcard, then the attributes permitted are the union of what's allowed by the two wildcards. Have I got it right? And if so, can someone please explain the reasoning? Michael Kay
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 09:10:10 UTC