[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com> writes:
> It seems like section 3.14.6, "Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation
> OK (Simple)", of XML Schema Structures Part 1 doesn't allow for atomic
> restrictions, which of course the sForS must do, so it would seem there
> would have to be a special case for it.
I've just re-read it, and the clauses all seem to be satisfied in the
case in hand:
2.1 is satisfied, because 'restriction' is not being passed in as a
parameter, as it were;
2.2 is satisfied, because 2.2.1 is satisfied.
What am I missing?
Note I am _not_ arguing that because these definitions are in the
sForS the primitive builtins are really derived, or that the
definitions in the sForS are sufficient -- these definitions are in
the sForS for completeness and documentation purposes, not because
they have real semantic bite: all the primitive builtins have
idiosyncratic semantics which is specified in the prose of the
relevant sub-section of the REC.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
