Re: question about restrictions

"Henry S. Thompson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Chiusano Joseph" <> writes:
>
> > I believe you found the cause in your explanation below - the
> > restriction is not actually a restriction. You would have to - for
> > example - change one of the maxOccurs facets from "unbounded" to "5" (or
> > anything other than "unbounded").
>
> Sorry, that's not a problem -- vacuous restriction is allowed.  I
> don't know the details of the validator involved, but I would guess
> that the problem is that you're using anonymous type definitions -- 
> W3C XML Schema requires the type definition of an element in a restriction
to be
> the same as or derived from the type definition of the corresponding
> element, and it only _guarantees_ identity for type definitions with
> names.  So move that anonymous definition up to the top level, give it
> a name, and refer to it _by_ name, i.e.
>
>   <xsd:element name="FirstElement" type="myChoiceType"/>
>
> in both base and restriction, and you should win.
>
> ht
> -- 
>  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: 
>                    URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
spam]
>

I tried you're solution not 5 minutes before reading your reply and it
resolved the problem.  So, it does appear the anoymous type were the cause.

Thank you both for your replies,

Brent Worden