- From: Joe Pallas <pallas@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:35:39 -0800
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
I got handed a schema that contains (stripped down to the bare essentials) this: <schema targetNamespace="http://example.com/myExample" xmlns:tns="http://example.com/myExample" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ 2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"> <complexType name="BaseType" abstract="true"> <simpleContent> <extension base="string"> <attribute name="myAttr" use="optional"/> </extension> </simpleContent> </complexType> <complexType name="DerivedType"> <simpleContent> <extension base="tns:BaseType"/> </simpleContent> </complexType> <complexType name="ExtendedType"> <complexContent> <extension base="tns:DerivedType"> <attribute name="anotherAttr" type="boolean" use="optional"/> </extension> </complexContent> </complexType> </schema> XSV complains about ExtendedType, saying: attempt to derive a complex basetype from a simple base: DerivedType. Now, it is certainly the case that ExtendedType's content is actually simple, not complex, so simpleContent would be more appropriate. But I can't figure out where in the rec it actually says that this is not legal. I found a discussion of what seems to be exactly this issue in the archives. The last word in that discussion was <http://lists.w3.org/ Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2002Aug/0059.html>, which said "I think you're right that this is legal." I looked at the complex type derivation constraints in the spec, and I couldn't find a violation. So, this may be bad style, but why is it rejected? Thanks. joe
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 03:42:39 UTC