- From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:35:22 +0800
- To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2A2B2F12CF99EA4A898E2D4729441B41ECC951@exwa2-per.wa.csiro.au>
What is the correct way to define a type for an empty element just carrying attributes? In particular, one that can later be extended to have content. Is it <complexType name="typeA"> <attribute name="att1" type="string"/> </complexType> or <complexType name="typeA"> <sequence/> <attribute name="att1" type="string"/> </complexType> I getting tangled up with concerns about anyType vs empty complex type. >From http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#d0e9252 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#d0e9252> we know that *all* WXS type declarations are ultimately *restrictions* of anyType. This can be made explicit as follows: <complexType name="typeA"> <sequence/> <attribute name="att1" type="string"/> </complexType> could be strictly expressed <complexType name="typeA"> <complexContent> <restriction base="anyType"> <sequence/> <attribute name="att1" type="string"/> </restriction> </complexContent> </complexType> and I think <complexType name="typeB"> </complexType> implicitly just aliases "anyType" to "typeB". Hence, I'm wondering if my first example is strictly an "anyType with attributes", rather than an empty type with attributes. ______ Simon.Cox@csiro.au CSIRO Exploration & Mining 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151 PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102 AUSTRALIA T: +61(8) 6436 8639 F: +61(8) 6436 8555 C: +61(4) 0330 2672 callto://dr_shorthair http://www.em.csiro.au <http://www.em.csiro.au/>
Received on Friday, 26 November 2004 10:35:57 UTC