- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:43:00 +0100
- To: "Hirtle, David" <David.Hirtle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
"Hirtle, David" <David.Hirtle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes: > a.xsd (http://www.ruleml.org/0.89/xsd/a.xsd) defines an element "body" > which allows only the element "x". > > b.xsd (http://www.ruleml.org/0.89/xsd/b.xsd) redefines "body" from > a.xsd, first extending it to allow a new element "y" and then > restricting it to disallow "x", effectively replacing "x" with "y" in > the content model of "body". > > Assuming this is permissible in XML Schema... > > ab.ruleml (http://www.ruleml.org/0.89/exa/ab.ruleml) should not be > valid w.r.t. b.xsd because "body" contains an "x". > > XSV (web form and installation) reports no validity problems but > crashes. Saxon correctly (?) identifies the problem, as appended > below. Are you sure -- web form reports the expected error when I run it: http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv?docAddrs=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruleml.org%2F0.89%2Fexa%2Fab.ruleml&style=xsl# > So I'm left with the question: is this the correct way to "replace" an > element with another in a content model via <redefine> (if possible at > all with XML Schema)? And what about the validators? I can see why this works, but I don't _think_ it should. The 'correct' way to do this is with _three_ files. 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@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 Saturday, 2 April 2005 14:43:09 UTC