[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Meaning? You want meaning?
As Dare assures me (and the rest of us ignorami who are not W3C members)
Henry's got the technical issues regarding the Schrodinger type nailed down
in his forthcoming erratum.
As for purpose and intent, I assume it was done so that all types are based
on a single root. Defining empty content this way is perfectly consistent
with how restriction works, BTW.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:21 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>
>
|
