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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: CIQ and <ComplexContent>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@oss.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 16:12
> To: 'David RR Webber (XML)'
> Cc: 'emergency@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: CIQ and <ComplexContent>
> David,
> I see what you mean when you say that this is a grey area in 
> XSD.  I checked the Recommendation and indeed this is a grey 
> area.  It is true that the current CIQ schema does not 
> violate any normative statement in the Recommendation.  So 
> even though it is intuitively wrong, it is not an outright 
> error either.
> The reason I say it is intuitively wrong is that *actually* 
> extending a "complex type definition with simple content" 
> into a "complex type definition with complex content" (i.e., 
> by adding particles) is forbidden by the Recommendation.  So 
> you cannot use the <complexContent> tag for the only purpose 
> for which this tag exists--that is, to specify complex 
> content.  However, you are allowed to use that tag (as an 
> alternative to <simpleContent>) **so long as it has no 
> effect**, which is funny!
> Notice that in this case the resulting (extended) type will 
> be a complex type with **simple** content, even though the 
> tag <complexContent> is being used.  It feels wrong, doesn't it?

Anyway, with regard to CIQ, they have used the tag <simpleContent> in some
places and the tag <complexContent> in other places, to define different
extensions of the same type (which is a complex type with simple content).
We can include this observation in our note to the CIQ TC.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]