This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
You assume all risk for your use. © 2002 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
<Snip>
what is the point of
allowing an xsd:restriction element with no children?
</Snip>
If I read your question correctly (apologies if I'm not),
here's a case where this *might* be useful:
Suppose I've defined a simple type of string length 5 as
follows:
<xsd:simpleType
name = "StringLength5Type">
<xsd:restriction base = "xsd:string">
<xsd:maxLength value = "5" fixed = "true"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
I can reuse this definition in other simple type definitions -
for instance, to declare another simple type that is also string length
5:
<xsd:simpleType name = "SomeNewCodeType">
<xsd:restriction base =
"StringLength5Type"/>
</xsd:simpleType>
Regards,
Joe Chiusano
LMI
>
**************************************************************************
> Joseph M. Chiusano
> Logistics Management Institute
> 2000 Corporate Ridge
> McLean, VA 22102
> Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
> Tel: 571.633.7722
>
**************************************************************************
>
-----Original Message-----
From:
Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:21 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re:
[xml-dev] Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
OK. Now that I finally understand why this is invalid, what is
the point
of allowing an xsd:restriction element with
no children? Is it
specifically to allow me to
restrict content down to emptiness and yet
still get
the OO advantages (?) of using a restriction?
-- Ron
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 list use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
