- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:51:53 +0100
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk> writes: > Where a complex type A does not specify "mixed" (either on the complexType > element or the complexContent element), and is derived by extension from a > complex type B that specifies mixed="yes", Xerces and XSV both appear to > treat A as allowing mixed content. > > They are presumably doing the right thing, and it seems a sensible thing to > do, but I can't find anything in the spec that justifies it. As I read the > rules, the "effective mixed" of A is false, and there is then a violation of > the constraint Derivation Valid (Extension): 1.4.3.2.2.1 Both {content > type}s must be mixed or both must be element-only. There has been some reworking of all this in the PER [1] but in general you're right, and XSV (2.7, anyway) reports the error in e.g. <xs:complexType name="b2" mixed="true"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="a"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="e6x"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="b2"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="b"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> If either of the type defs is empty the rules are different, however -- was that the case in your example? ht [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/structures-with-errata.html#declare-type -- 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@inf.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 Friday, 17 September 2004 08:51:56 UTC