[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:17 AM
> To: Rich Salz
> Cc: xml-dev
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Objections to / uses of PSVI?
>
>
> Rich Salz wrote:
> >
> > > Would you be averse to something PSVI-like if it only meant
> > > returning a much-restricted set of simple data types?
> >
> > If you only had primitive types, then don't you lose default values
> > for complex types?
>
> Complex types can have default values? Are you sure? My
> reading of the spec (the definition of {value constraint} in
> section 3.3.2) is anything but definitive, but I think it
> means that only simple element types can have defaults. On
> the other hand "Schema Information Set Contribution: Element
> Default Value" in section 3.3.5 seems to hint that complex
> types can have defaults. Must have forgotten my schema spec
> decoder ring today ... mumble ... mumble ...
>
I interpreted the spec the same way you did. Only simpleTypes or
complexTypes with simpleContent have defaults.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
|
