- From: Xan Gregg <xan.gregg@jmp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:46:47 -0400
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> I was looking at XMLSchema Part 2: Datatypes, section 2.5.1.3(Union > datatypes, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#union-datatypes), second > example. > It seems to me that the part > xsi:type="xsd:string" > should be invalid as per [1] because "xsd:string" is not validly > derived from the anonymous union type according to the rules in [2]. I > understand that [2], rule 2.2.4, specifies that in the case of an > union type B, a type D can be validly derived from B if validly > derived from any of the members of the union, > but in this case it's the other way around, the union members are > validly derived from "xsd:string". > Is this example in error or is there something that I'm missing? I think you're right. I don't know why that example uses the vacuous restrictions of the simple types instead of the types themselves. xan
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 00:46:54 UTC