- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:19:47 -0700
- To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Costello, Roger L. wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Consider these two simpleTypes: > > <xsd:simpleType name="LotteryNumbers"> > <xsd:restriction> > <xsd:simpleType> > <xsd:list itemType="OneToNinetyNine"/> > </xsd:simpleType> > <xsd:length value="6"/> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleType> > > <xsd:simpleType name="OneToNinetyNine"> > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:positiveInteger"> > <xsd:maxInclusive value="99"/> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleType> > > The chain of base types is: > > LotteryNumbers --> the anonymous list simpleType --> OneToNintyNine Not so. The base type of the anonymous list type is not OneToNinetyNine but xsd:anySimpleType. > > The chain of constructed from types is: > > LotteryNumbers --> OneToNintyNine That would be a surprising use of terminology in my view: LotteryNumbers is not constructed from OneToNinetyNine (as the XSD 1.1 spec uses the term 'constructed from'); it is constructed, by facet-based restriction, from the anonymous list type. It is the anonymous list type which is constructed (by the list constructor) from OneToNinetyNine. > > What is the correct terminology for the two chains? > > Is the second one is called the "type definition chain" or the "constructed type definition chain"? > > Is the first one called the "base type definition chain"? Called by whom? -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 22:20:19 UTC