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