RE: Abstract types in substitution groups

Why would it be any more invalid than any other element being declared with
an abstract type? All it means is that the instance either has to have a
non-abstract xsi:type, or has to be an element in the substitution group of
myElement declared with a concrete subtype of abstractType.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cordell
> Sent: 08 February 2007 12:01
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Abstract types in substitution groups
> 
> 
> I've been looking at a published schema that uses an abstract 
> type in a substitution group.  i.e. something like:
> 
> 
> <xs:complexType name='abstractType' abstract='true'>
>     <xs:sequence/>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> <xs:element name='myElement' type='abstractType' 
> substitutionGroup='sgroup'/>
> 
> 
> To me this seems invalid.  Or do substitutionGroups have 
> special permission 
> to use abstract types?
> 
> Thanks for any help,
> 
> Pete.
> --
> =============================================
> Pete Cordell
> Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
> for XML to C++ data binding visit
> http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
> (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
> =============================================
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 12:24:24 UTC