RE: [emergency] RE: CIQ and <ComplexContent>

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Alexandro,

Absolutely this is the right wording - 

> 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.

We need to ensure it is treated consistently and hence this will avoid ambiguous issues such as what the Emergency TC has uncovered in using the CIQ schemas.

Thanks, DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [emergency] RE: CIQ and <ComplexContent>
> From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com>
> Date: Tue, February 05, 2008 4:19 pm
> To: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> > -----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
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php