OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc

[ 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.

  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]


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS