[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Helmut Dirtinger" <helmut_dirtinger@hotmail.com> writes:
> I am currently experimenting with derivation by restriction and
> attribute declarations. I tried all combinations of changing the
> attribute use="required|prohibited|optional" from the base type to
> the derivation.
The Schema REC [1] says the following on this question:
2 For each attribute use (call this R) in the {attribute uses} the
appropriate case among the following must be true:
2.1 If there is an attribute use in the {attribute uses} of the
{base type definition} (call this B) whose {attribute
declaration} has the same {name} and {target namespace}, then all
of the following must be true:
2.1.1 one of the following must be true:
2.1.1.1 B's {required} is false.
2.1.1.2 R's {required} is true.
. . .
3 For each attribute use in the {attribute uses} of the {base type
definition} whose {required} is true, there must be an attribute
use with an {attribute declaration} with the same {name} and
{target namespace} as its {attribute declaration} in the
{attribute uses} of the complex type definition itself whose
{required} is true.
These constraints apply at the component level, so 'prohibited'
translates into no attribute at all. Accordingly I read the allowed
cases as
B R
required required
optional required [your case 2]
optional optional
optional [prohibited] [your case 1]
> SQC grants three combinations: case 1 and 2 and a third one:
>
> (3) Basetype: use="required" Subtype:use="prohibited"
To my surprise, I find that SQC2.2 does indeed allow this case. This
seems to me to be a mistake, as it violates clause (3) above.
> So my question concerns the validity of this third case. Is this
> case valid?
I don't think so.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/#coss-ct
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.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]
|