RE: [xml-dev] Re: XML Schema ?

["Gregory M. Messner" <gmessner@breezefactor.com>]

I suppose there's nothing in the text of the spec that contradicts this, but
while looking at the definition of restriction for simpleType, each particle
may be optional but the content model must be present. In the spec
restriction content model is defined as follows:

(annotation?, (simpleType?, (minExclusive | minInclusive | maxExclusive |
maxInclusive | totalDigits | fractionDigits | length | minLength | maxLength
| enumeration | whiteSpace | pattern)*))

Again notice that each particle is optional but the content model itself is
not. Without even considering XML Schema, would the following be valid XML?

DTD fragment:
<!ELEMENT A (B?, C?, D?)>

XML document fragment:
<A></A>

If the answer is yes, then I will accept using an empty restriction as a
pseudo type alias, otherwise I would not. I've looked thru the XML spec and
was not able to find a definitive answer on this. At this point my guess
would be yes it is valid, but I'm not 100% sure and would like to be.

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:07 PM
To: 'Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: XML Schema ?


Exactly.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI [mailto:kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:08 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] Re: XML Schema ?
> 
> 
> 
> > Notice that the restriction has no content. If this is 
> valid, then is the
> > intent to just extend the "base64Binary" builtin type? Or 
> assign a different
> > name to the "base64Binary" builtin type? I thought <restriction> was
> > intended to restrict a new datatype to a *subset* of an 
> existing type?
> 
> I suppose CryptoBinary can still be considered as a 
> restriction of base64Binary.
> In other words, it's not an alias, although it behaves like 
> that to some
> extent.
> 
> I don't see anything in the spec that contradicts my interpretation.
> 
> 
> In mathematics, if A=B, then one can usually say that A is a 
> subset of B.
> To exclude that possibility, one has to say that A is a 
> proper subset of
> B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regards,
> ----------------------
> K.Kawaguchi
> E-Mail: kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>