This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Within the Schema for Schema documents [1], type altType is defined as follows: <xs:complexType name="altType"> ... <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="xs:annotated"> <xs:choice minOccurs="0"> <xs:element ref="xs:simpleType"/> <xs:element ref="xs:complexType"/> </xs:choice> <xs:attribute name="test" type="string" use="optional"/> <xs:attribute name="type" type="QName" use="optional"/> <xs:attribute name="xpathDefaultNamespace" type="xs:xpathDefaultNamespace"/> <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:ID"/> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> The content model references the global element declarations simpleType and complexType. Such global declarations are used to validate the simple and complex types defined at the top-level of a schema document. So, both of them requires the attribute name. On the other hand, I think that unnamed type definitions only should be allowed within an <alternative> element. Moreover, type altType explicitly declares an attribute id of type ID. But such an attribute is also inherited from the base type annotated. See also bug 5052. References [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema11-1-20070830/#normative-schemaSchema
A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG on 7 February 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition (member-only link).
The 'Structures Omnibus 1' proposal mentioned in an earlier comment was adopted by the XML Schema Working Group today. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) The XML Schema WG believes that the changes adopted today resolve this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the changes adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
I reviewed the resolution, and I agree with it. Thank you. Paolo