[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Just to be very, painfully, tediously, clear-- the following two
declarations are NOT equivalent:
<element name="myElem"/>
<element name="myElem">
<complexType>
<complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
</element>
The first declaration is equivalent to the following:
<element name="myElem" type="anyType"/>
Which I hope makes the reason for the use of restriction for empty element
declarations a tiny bit clearer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:38 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
>
>
> Oops. This was in response to Jeff Lowery's clarification of the dual
> nature of anyType in the following, and why an instance of myElem can
> only have empty content.
>
> > <element name="myElem">
> > <complexType>
> > <complexContent>
> > <restriction base="anyType"/>
> > </complexContent>
> > </complexType>
> > </element>
>
> Sorry about the confusion.
>
> -- Ron
>
> Ronald Bourret wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
|
