W3C

XML Schema 1.1 Part 1: Structures

W3C Working Draft 30 March 2006

This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-1-20060330/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/
Previous versions:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema11-1-20050224/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema11-1-20040716/
Editors:
Henry S. Thompson, University of Edinburgh <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, World Wide Web Consortium <cmsmcq@w3.org>
Noah Mendelsohn, IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
David Beech, Oracle Corporation (retired) <davidbeech@earthlink.net>
Murray Maloney, Muzmo Communications <murray@muzmo.com>

This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XML, XHTML with changes since version 1.0 marked, XHTML with changes since previous Working Draft marked, Independent copy of the schema for schema documents, Independent copy of the DTD for schema documents, Independent tabulation of components and microcomponents, and List of translations.


Abstract

XML Schema: Structures specifies the XML Schema definition language, which offers facilities for describing the structure and constraining the contents of XML documents, including those which exploit the XML Namespace facility. The schema language, which is itself represented in XML and uses namespaces, substantially reconstructs and considerably extends the capabilities found in XML document type definitions (DTDs). This specification depends on XML Schema 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes.

Status of this Document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

This is a Public Working Draft of XML Schema 1.1. It is here made available for review by W3C members and the public. It is intended to give an indication of the W3C XML Schema Working Group's intentions for this new version of the XML Schema language and our progress in achieving them. It attempts to be complete in indicating what will change from version 1.0, but does not specify in all cases how things will change.

This draft was published on 30 March 2006. The major changes since the previous draft are:

For those primarily interested in the changes since version 1.0, the Changes since version 1.0 (§G) appendix, which summarizes both changes already made and also those in prospect, with links to the relevant sections of this draft, is the recommended starting point. Accompanying versions of this document display in color all changes to normative text since version 1.0 and since the previous Working Draft.

Please send comments on this Working Draft to www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org (archive).

Although feedback based on any aspect of this specification is welcome, there are certain aspects of the design presented herein for which the Working Group is particularly interested in feedback. These are designated "priority feedback" aspects of the design, and identified as such in editorial notes at appropriate points in this draft.

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document has been produced by the W3C XML Schema Working Group as part of the W3C XML Activity. The goals of the XML Schema language version 1.1 are discussed in the Requirements for XML Schema 1.1 document. The authors of this document are the members of the XML Schema Working Group. Different parts of this specification have different editors.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Information about translations of this document is available at http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byTechnology?technology=xmlschema.

The presentation of this document has been augmented to identify changes from a previous version, controlled by dg-statusquo-color-200502.xml. Changes which have Working Group consensus are marked thus: new, added text, changed text, and deleted text. Other changes, which do not now have Working Group consensus, are marked this way: tentative additions, changes, and deletions.


Table of Contents

1 Introduction
    1.1 Introduction to Version 1.1
    1.2 Purpose
    1.3 Dependencies on Other Specifications
    1.4 Documentation Conventions and Terminology
2 Conceptual Framework
    2.1 Overview of XML Schema
    2.2 XML Schema Abstract Data Model
    2.3 Constraints and Validation Rules
    2.4 Conformance
    2.5 Names and Symbol Spaces
    2.6 Schema-Related Markup in Documents Being Validated
    2.7 Representation of Schemas on the World Wide Web
3 Schema Component Details
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 Attribute Declarations
    3.3 Element Declarations
    3.4 Complex Type Definitions
    3.5 AttributeUses
    3.6 Attribute Group Definitions
    3.7 Model Group Definitions
    3.8 Model Groups
    3.9 Particles
    3.10 Wildcards
    3.11 Identity-constraint Definitions
    3.12 Notation Declarations
    3.13 Annotations
    3.14 Simple Type Definitions
    3.15 Schemas as a Whole
    3.16 Auxiliary Components
4 Schemas and Namespaces: Access and Composition
    4.1 Layer 1: Summary of the Schema-validity Assessment Core
    4.2 Layer 2: Schema Documents, Namespaces and Composition
    4.3 Layer 3: Schema Document Access and Web-interoperability
5 Schemas and Schema-validity Assessment
    5.1 Errors in Schema Construction and Structure
    5.2 Assessing Schema-Validity
    5.3 Missing Sub-components
    5.4 Responsibilities of Schema-aware Processors

Appendices

A Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative)
B References (normative)
C Outcome Tabulations (normative)
    C.1 Validation Rules
    C.2 Contributions to the post-schema-validation infoset
    C.3 Schema Representation Constraints
    C.4 Schema Component Constraints
D Terminology for implementation-defined features
    D.1 Subset of the Post-schema-validation Infoset
    D.2 Terminology of schema construction
    D.3 Terminology of fallback and lax assessment
E Required Information Set Items and Properties (normative)
F Checklist of implementation-defined features
G Changes since version 1.0
    G.1 Changes already made
    G.2 Outstanding issues
H Implementing 'actually restricts'
I Schema Components Diagram (non-normative)
J Glossary (non-normative)
K DTD for Schemas (non-normative)
L Analysis of the Unique Particle Attribution Constraint (non-normative)
M References (non-normative)
N Acknowledgements (non-normative)

1 Introduction

This document sets out the structural part (XML Schema: Structures) of the XML Schema definition language.

Chapter 2 presents a Conceptual Framework (§2) for XML Schemas, including an introduction to the nature of XML Schemas and an introduction to the XML Schema abstract data model, along with other terminology used throughout this document.

Chapter 3, Schema Component Details (§3), specifies the precise semantics of each component of the abstract model, the representation of each component in XML, with reference to a DTD and XML Schema for an XML Schema document type, along with a detailed mapping between the elements and attribute vocabulary of this representation and the components and properties of the abstract model.

Chapter 4 presents Schemas and Namespaces: Access and Composition (§4), including the connection between documents and schemas, the import, inclusion and redefinition of declarations and definitions and the foundations of schema-validity assessment.

Chapter 5 discusses Schemas and Schema-validity Assessment (§5), including the overall approach to schema-validity assessment of documents, and responsibilities of schema-aware processors.

The normative appendices include a Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A) for the XML representation of schemas and References (normative) (§B).

The non-normative appendices include the DTD for Schemas (non-normative) (§K) and a Glossary (non-normative) (§J).

This document is primarily intended as a language definition reference. As such, although it contains a few examples, it is not primarily designed to serve as a motivating introduction to the design and its features, or as a tutorial for new users. Rather it presents a careful and fully explicit definition of that design, suitable for guiding implementations. For those in search of a step-by-step introduction to the design, the non-normative [XML Schema: Primer] is a much better starting point than this document.

next sub-section1.1 Introduction to Version 1.1

The Working Group has two main goals for this version of W3C XML Schema:

These goals are in tension with one another. The Working Group's strategic guidelines for changes between versions 1.0 and 1.1 can be summarized as follows:

  1. Support for versioning (acknowledging that this may be slightly disruptive to the XML transfer syntax at the margins)
  2. Bug fixes (unless in specific cases we decide that the fix is too disruptive for a point release)
  3. Editorial changes
  4. Design cleanup will possibly change behavior in edge cases
  5. Non-disruptive changes to type hierarchy (to better support current and forthcoming international standards and W3C recommendations)
  6. Design cleanup will possibly change component structure (changes to functionality restricted to edge cases)
  7. No significant changes in functionality
  8. No changes to XML transfer syntax except those required by version control hooks and bug fixes

The aim with regard to compatibility is that

previous sub-section next sub-section1.3 Dependencies on Other Specifications

The definition of XML Schema: Structures depends on the following specifications: [XML-Infoset], [XML-Namespaces 1.1], [XPath], and [XML Schema: Datatypes].

See Required Information Set Items and Properties (normative) (§E) for a tabulation of the information items and properties specified in [XML-Infoset] which this specification requires as a precondition to schema-aware processing.

[XML Schema: Datatypes] defines some datatypes which depend on definitions in [XML 1.1] and [XML-Namespaces 1.1]; those definitions, and therefore the datatypes based on them, vary between version 1.0 ([XML 1.0], [XML-Namespaces 1.0]) and version 1.1 ([XML 1.1], [XML-Namespaces 1.1]) of those specifications. In any given schema-validity-·assessment· episode, the choice of the 1.0 or the 1.1 definition of those datatypes is implementation-defined.

Conforming implementations of this specification may provide either the 1.1-based datatypes or the 1.0-based datatypes, or both. If both are supported, the choice of which datatypes to use in a particular assessment episode should be under user control.

Note:  Implementations may provide the heuristic of using the 1.1 datatypes if the input is labeled as XML 1.1, and the 1.0 datatypes if the input is labeled 1.0. It should be noted however that the XML version number is not required to be present in the input to an assessment episode, and in any case the heuristic should be subject to override by users, to support cases where users wish to accept XML 1.1 input but validate it using the 1.0 datatypes, or accept XML 1.0 input and validate it using the 1.1 datatypes.
Note:  Some users will perhaps wish to accept only XML 1.1 input, or only XML 1.0 input. Conforming implementations of this specification which accept XML input may accept XML 1.0, XML 1.1, or both and may provide user control over which versions of XML to accept.

previous sub-section 1.4 Documentation Conventions and Terminology

The section introduces the highlighting and typography as used in this document to present technical material.

Aspects of this document which the Working Group are committed to changing, but where (all) changes are not yet in place, are signalled by the appearance of an Issue, with a link to the associated version 1.1 Requirement, for example:

All such issues are tabulated in Outstanding issues (§G.2).

Special terms are defined at their point of introduction in the text. For example [Definition:]  a term is something used with a special meaning. The definition is labeled as such and the term it defines is displayed in boldface. The end of the definition is not specially marked in the displayed or printed text. Uses of defined terms are links to their definitions, set off with middle dots, for instance ·term·.

Non-normative examples are set off in boxes and accompanied by a brief explanation:

Example
<schema targetNamespace="http://www.example.com/XMLSchema/1.0/mySchema">
And an explanation of the example.

The definition of each kind of schema component consists of a list of its properties and their contents, followed by descriptions of the semantics of the properties:

Schema Component: Example
{example property}
A Component component. Required.

An example property

References to properties of schema components are links to the relevant definition as exemplified above, set off with curly braces, for instance {example property}.

The correspondence between an element information item which is part of the XML representation of a schema and one or more schema components is presented in a tableau which illustrates the element information item(s) involved. This is followed by a tabulation of the correspondence between properties of the component and properties of the information item. Where context may determine which of several different components may arise, several tabulations, one per context, are given. The property correspondences are normative, as are the illustrations of the XML representation element information items.

In the XML representation, bold-face attribute names (e.g. count below) indicate a required attribute information item, and the rest are optional. Where an attribute information item has an enumerated type definition, the values are shown separated by vertical bars, as for size below; if there is a default value, it is shown following a colon. Where an attribute information item has a built-in simple type definition defined in [XML Schema: Datatypes], a hyperlink to its definition therein is given.

The allowed content of the information item is shown as a grammar fragment, using the Kleene operators ?, * and +. Each element name therein is a hyperlink to its own illustration.

Note: The illustrations are derived automatically from the Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A). In the case of apparent conflict, the Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A) takes precedence, as it, together with the ·Schema Representation Constraints·, provide the normative statement of the form of XML representations.
XML Representation Summary: example Element Information Item

<example
  count = integer
  size = (large | medium | small) : medium>
  Content: (all | any*)
</example>

Example Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
Description of what the property corresponds to, e.g. the value of the size [attribute]
 

References to elements in the text are links to the relevant illustration as exemplified above, set off with angle brackets, for instance <example>.

References to properties of information items as defined in [XML-Infoset] are notated as links to the relevant section thereof, set off with square brackets, for example [children].

Properties which this specification defines for information items are introduced as follows:

PSVI Contributions for example information items
[new property]
The value the property gets.

References to properties of information items defined in this specification are notated as links to their introduction as exemplified above, set off with square brackets, for example [new property].

The following highlighting is used for non-normative commentary in this document:

Note: General comments directed to all readers.

Within normative prose in this specification, the words may, should, must and must not are defined as follows:

may
Conforming documents and XML Schema-aware processors are permitted to but need not behave as described.
should
It is recommended that conforming documents and XML Schema-aware processors behave as described, but there can be valid reasons for them not to; it is important that the full implications be understood and carefully weighed before adopting behavior at variance with the recommendation.
must
Conforming documents and XML Schema-aware processors are required to behave as described; otherwise they are in error.
must not
Conforming documents and XML Schema-aware processors are forbidden to behave as described; if they do they are in error.

These definitions describe in terms specific to this document the meanings assigned to these terms by [IETF RFC 2119]. The specific wording follows that of [XML 1.1].

This specification provides a definition of error and of conformant processors' responsibilities with respect to errors in Schemas and Schema-validity Assessment (§5).

2 Conceptual Framework

This chapter gives an overview of XML Schema: Structures at the level of its abstract data model. Schema Component Details (§3) provides details on this model, including a normative representation in XML for the components of the model. Readers interested primarily in learning to write schema documents may wish to first read [XML Schema: Primer] for a tutorial introduction, and only then consult the sub-sections of Schema Component Details (§3) named XML Representation of ... for the details.

next sub-section2.1 Overview of XML Schema

An XML Schema consistsis a set of components such as type definitions and element declarations. These can be used to assess the validity of well-formed element and attribute information items (as defined in [XML-Infoset]), and furthermore may specify augmentations to those items and their descendants. This augmentation makes explicit information which may have been implicit in the original document, such as normalized and/or default values for attributes and elements and the types of element and attribute information items. The input information set can also be augmented with information about the validity of the item, or about other properties described in this specification. [Definition:]  We refer to the augmented infoset which results from conformant processing as defined in this specification as the post-schema-validation infoset, or PSVI. Conforming processors may provide access to different parts of the PSVI, as described in Subset of the Post-schema-validation Infoset (§D.1). The mechanisms by which processors provide access to the PSVI are neither defined nor constrained by this specification.

Issue (RQ-142i): Issue 2846 (RQ-142 PSVI properties), Issue 2822 (RQ-144 required properties)

Version 1.0 included several properties in the PSVI whose absence carried information (e.g. [type definition]), while at the same time not being completely clear about which PSVI properties, if any, were required. The Working Group intends to eliminate the former and clarify the latter.

Resolution:

For 142, which mandates that insofar as possible absence of a property should not in general signify, when it does explicit 'if-and-only-if' language is required, the effect is distributed throughout the PSVI sub-sub-sections in section 3.

The Working Group appears to be close to consensus (although no final decision has been made) on views which can be summarized thus:

  1. We should eliminate any dependency on the absence of specific properties (i.e. important situations should be describable and distinguishable in terms of properties and their values, without appeal to the absence of particular properties), or if this proves unfeasible in particular cases we should say explicitly that a property is present "if and only if" certain conditions apply. Any remaining "if" (if any) would be a true conditional, not an equivalence.
  2. Any specification of a class of processors (including ours) can require specific additional information not in the PSVI, though should note that interoperability is better if applications depend only on the properties present in the PSVI as we define it.
  3. In our own specification of processor classes, we should be explicit that processors may provide additional information. (Or alternatively be explicit that they must not -- but the chair believes the WG consensus was to allow it.)

For 144, a few general remarks here about flexible-but-firm conformance are wanted here; most of the new work should end up in section 4 and/or 5.

Schema-validity assessment has two aspects:

1 Determining local schema-validity, that is whether an element or attribute information item satisfies the constraints embodied in the relevant components of an XML Schema;
2 Synthesizing an overall validation outcome for the item, combining local schema-validity with the results of schema-validity assessments of its descendants, if any, and adding appropriate augmentations to the infoset to record this outcome.

Throughout this specification, [Definition:]  the word valid and its derivatives are used to refer to clause 1 above, the determination of local schema-validity.

Throughout this specification, [Definition:]   the word assessment is used to refer to the overall process of local validation, schema-validity assessment and infoset augmentation.

previous sub-section next sub-section2.2 XML Schema Abstract Data Model

This specification builds on [XML 1.1] and [XML-Namespaces 1.1]. The concepts and definitions used herein regarding XML are framed at the abstract level of information items as defined in [XML-Infoset]. By definition, this use of the infoset provides a priori guarantees of well-formedness (as defined in [XML 1.1]) and namespace conformance (as defined in [XML-Namespaces 1.1]) for all candidates for ·assessment· and for all ·schema documents·.

Just as [XML 1.1] and [XML-Namespaces 1.1] can be described in terms of information items, XML Schemas can be described in terms of an abstract data model. In defining XML Schemas in terms of an abstract data model, this specification rigorously specifies the information which must be available to a conforming XML Schema processor. The abstract model for schemas is conceptual only, and does not mandate any particular implementation or representation of this information. To facilitate interoperation and sharing of schema information, a normative XML interchange format for schemas is provided.

[Definition:]  Schema component is the generic term for the building blocks that comprise the abstract data model of the schema. [Definition:]   An XML Schema is a set of ·schema components·. There are 13 kinds of component in all, falling into three groups. The primary components, which may (type definitions) or must (element and attribute declarations) have names, are as follows:

  • Simple type definitions
  • Complex type definitions
  • Attribute declarations
  • Element declarations

The secondary components, which must have names, are as follows:

  • Attribute group definitions
  • Identity-constraint definitions
  • Model group definitions
  • Notation declarations

Finally, the "helper" components provide small parts of other components; they are not independent of their context:

  • Annotations
  • Model groups
  • Particles
  • Wildcards
  • Attribute Uses

The name [Definition:]  Component covers all the different kinds of component defined in this specification.

During ·validation·, [Definition:]  declaration components are associated by (qualified) name to information items being ·validated·.

On the other hand, [Definition:]  definition components define internal schema components that can be used in other schema components.

[Definition:]  Declarations and definitions may and in some cases must have and be identified by names, which are NCNames as defined by [XML-Namespaces 1.1].

[Definition:]  Several kinds of component have a target namespace, which is either ·absent· or a namespace name, also as defined by [XML-Namespaces 1.1]. The ·target namespace· serves to identify the namespace within which the association between the component and its name exists. In the case of declarations, this in turn determines the namespace name of, for example, the element information items it may ·validate·.

Note: At the abstract level, there is no requirement that the components of a schema share a ·target namespace·. Any schema for use in ·assessment· of documents containing names from more than one namespace will of necessity include components with different ·target namespaces·. This contrasts with the situation at the level of the XML representation of components, in which each schema document contributes definitions and declarations to a single target namespace.

·Validation·, defined in detail in Schema Component Details (§3), is a relation between information items and schema components. For example, an attribute information item may ·validate· with respect to an attribute declaration, a list of element information items may ·validate· with respect to a content model, and so on. The following sections briefly introduce the kinds of components in the schema abstract data model, other major features of the abstract model, and how they contribute to ·validation·.

2.2.1 Type Definition Components

The abstract model provides two kinds of type definition component: simple and complex.

[Definition:]  This specification uses the phrase type definition in cases where no distinction need be made between simple and complex types.

Type definitions form a hierarchy with a single root. The subsections below first describe characteristics of that hierarchy, then provide an introduction to simple and complex type definitions themselves.

2.2.1.1 Type Definition Hierarchy

[Definition:]  Except for a distinguished ·ur-type definition·, every ·type definition· is, by construction, either a ·restriction· or an ·extension· of some other type definition. The graph of these relationships forms a tree known as the Type Definition Hierarchy.

[Definition:]  AThe type definition used as the basis for an ·extension· or ·restriction· is known as the base type definition of that definition.

[Definition:]  A type definition whose declarations or facets are in a one-to-one relation with those of another specified type definition, with each in turn restricting the possibilities of the one it corresponds to, is said to be a restriction A type defined by appropriate use of facets or declarations so as to validate a subset of what another type definition validates, with consistent PSVI outcomes, is a restriction of the other type. The specific restrictions might include narrowed ranges or reduced alternatives. Members of a type, A, whose definition is a ·restriction· of the definition of another type, B, are always members of type B as well.

Issue (RQ-17i):Issue 2820 (RQ-17 simplify restriction rules)

Version 1.0 made clear that the intention for derivation by restriction was that restrictions validated a subset of what their base validated. However, the constructive rules for what constituted valid content model restrictions for complex type definition not only failed to enforce this completely correctly, but also ruled out various cases which evidently should have been allowed. The Working Group has decided to shift to a much higher level statement of what constitutes a valid restriction, appealing directly to the subset requirement, in order to address these problems.

Resolution:

A major change in definition/presentation, with only modest changes in consequences for schemas and validity, will be made, by defining restriction for complex type definitions in terms of the desired result, that is that all members of a restricted type are members of its base type. In the normative part of the spec. this will be done by appeal to local validity.

"Clarifying: R restricts B: any EII that is locally valid [per R] must also be locally valid [per B], with side conditions on properties on terms you appeal to [to] get same child allowed by two content models." [-F2F 2004-03-12, section Subsumption (W3C-member-only link)]

A non-normative appendix will provide references to published algorithms for enforcing the constraint.

[Definition:]  A complex type definition which allows element or attribute content in addition to that allowed by another specified type definition is said to be an extension.

[Definition:]  A distinguished complex type definition, the ur-type definition, whose name is anyTyperootType in the XML Schema namespace, is present in each ·XML Schema·, serving as the root of the type definition hierarchy for that schema.

[Definition:]  A further special complex type definition, whose name is anyType in the XML Schema namespace, is also present in each ·XML Schema·. The definition of anyType serves as default type definition for element declarations whose XML representation does not specify one.

[Definition:]  A type definition used as the basis for an ·extension· or ·restriction· is known as the base type definition of that definition.

2.2.1.2 Simple Type Definition

A simple type definition is a set of constraints on strings and information about the values they encode, applicable to the ·normalized value· of an attribute information item or of an element information item with no element children. Informally, it applies to the values of attributes and the text-only content of elements.

Each simple type definition, whether built-in (that is, defined in [XML Schema: Datatypes]) or user-defined, is a ·restriction· of some particular simpleits ·base type definition·. For the built-in primitive type definitions, this is [Definition:]  theThe simple ur-type definition, a special ·restriction· of the ·ur-type definition·, whose name is anySimpleType in the XML Schema namespace is the root of the ·Type Definition Hierarchy· for the simple type definitions. The ·simple ur-type definition· is considered to have an unconstrained lexical space, and a value space consisting of the union of the value spaces of all the built-in primitive datatypes and the set of all lists of all members of the value spaces of all the built-in primitive datatypes. The built-in list datatypes all have the ·simple ur-type definition· as their ·base type definition·.

[Definition:]  There is a further special datatype called anyAtomicType, a ·restriction· of the ·simple ur-type definition·, which is the ·base type definition· of all the primitive built-in datatypes. It too is considered to have an unconstrained lexical space. Its value space consists of the union of the value spaces of all the built-in primitive datatypes.

The mapping from lexical space to value space is unspecified for items whose type definition is the ·simple ur-type definition·or ·anyAtomicType·. Accordingly this specification does not constrain processors' behaviour in areas where this mapping is implicated, for example checking such items against enumerations, constructing default attributes or elements whose declared type definition is the ·simple ur-type definition·, checking identity constraints involving such items.

Note: The Working Group expects to return to this area in a future version of this specification.

Simple types may also be defined[XML Schema: Datatypes] provides mechanisms for defining new simple type definitions by ·restricting· one of the built-in primitive or ordinary datatypes. It also provides mechanisms for constructing new simple type definitions whose members are lists of items themselves constrained by some other simple type definition, or whose membership is the union of the memberships of some other simple type definitions. Such list and union simple type definitions are also ·restrictions· of the ·simple ur-type definition·.

For detailed information on simple type definitions, see Simple Type Definitions (§3.14) and [XML Schema: Datatypes]. The latter also defines an extensive inventory of pre-defined simple types.

2.2.1.3 Complex Type Definition

A complex type definition is a set of attribute declarations and a content type, applicable to the [attributes] and [children] of an element information item respectively. The content type may require the [children] to contain neither element nor character information items (that is, to be empty), or to be a string which belongs to a particular simple type, or to contain a sequence of element information items which conforms to a particular model group, with or without character information items as well.

Each complex type definition other than the ·ur-type definition· is either

or

A complex type which extends another does so by having additional content model particles at the end of the other definition's content model, or by having additional attribute declarations, or both.

Note: This specification allows only appending, and not other kinds of extensions. This decision simplifies application processing required to cast instances from derived to base type. Future versions may allow more kinds of extension, requiring more complex transformations to effect casting.

For detailed information on complex type definitions, see Complex Type Definitions (§3.4).

2.2.2 Declaration Components

There are three kinds of declaration component: element, attribute, and notation. Each is described in a section below. Also included is a discussion of element substitution groups, which is a feature provided in conjunction with element declarations.

2.2.2.2 Element Substitution Group

In XML, the name and content of an element must correspond exactly to the element type referenced in the corresponding content model.

[Definition:]  Through the new mechanism of element substitution groups, XML Schemas provides a more powerful model supporting substitution of one named element for another. Any top-level element declaration can serve as the defining member, or head, for an element substitution group. Other top-level element declarations, regardless of target namespace, can be designated as members of the substitution group headed by this element. In a suitably enabled content model, a reference to the head ·validates· not just the head itself, but elements corresponding to any other member of the substitution group as well.

All such members must have type definitions which are either the same as the head's type definition or restrictions or extensions of it. Therefore, although the names of elements can vary widely as new namespaces and members of the substitution group are defined, the content of member elements is strictly limited according to the type definition of the substitution group head.

Note that element substitution groups are not represented as separate components. They are specified in the property values for element declarations (see Element Declarations (§3.3)).

2.2.2.4 Notation Declaration

A notation declaration is an association between a name and an identifier for a notation. For an attribute information item to be ·valid· with respect to a NOTATION simple type definition, its value must have been declared with a notation declaration.

For detailed information on notation declarations, see Notation Declarations (§3.12).

2.2.3 Model Group Components

The model group, particle, and wildcard components contribute to the portion of a complex type definition that controls an element information item's content.

2.2.3.2 Particle

A particle is a term in the grammar for element content, consisting of either an element declaration, a wildcard or a model group, together with occurrence constraints. Particles contribute to ·validation· as part of complex type definition ·validation·, when they allow anywhere from zero to many element information items or sequences thereof, depending on their contents and occurrence constraints.

The name [Definition:]  Term is used to refer to any of the three kinds of components which can appear in particles. All ·Terms· are themselves ·Annotated Components·.

[Definition:]  A particle can be used in a complex type definition to constrain the ·validation· of the [children] of an element information item; such a particle is called a content model.

Note: XML Schema: Structures ·content models· are similar to but more expressive than [XML 1.1] content models; unlike [XML 1.1], XML Schema: Structures applies ·content models· to the ·validation· of both mixed and element-only content.

For detailed information on particles, see Particles (§3.9).

2.2.4 Identity-constraint Definition Components

An identity-constraint definition is an association between a name and one of several varieties of identity-constraint related to uniqueness and reference. All the varieties use [XPath] expressions to pick out sets of information items relative to particular target element information items which are unique, or a key, or a ·valid· reference, within a specified scope. An element information item is only ·valid· with respect to an element declaration with identity-constraint definitions if those definitions are all satisfied for all the descendants of that element information item which they pick out.

For detailed information on identity-constraint definitions, see Identity-constraint Definitions (§3.11).

previous sub-section next sub-section2.3 Constraints and Validation Rules

The [XML 1.1] specification describes two kinds of constraints on XML documents: well-formedness and validity constraints. Informally, the well-formedness constraints are those imposed by the definition of XML itself (such as the rules for the use of the < and > characters and the rules for proper nesting of elements), while validity constraints are the further constraints on document structure provided by a particular DTD.

The preceding section focused on ·validation·, that is the constraints on information items which schema components supply. In fact however this specification provides four different kinds of normative statements about schema components, their representations in XML and their contribution to the ·validation· of information items:

Schema Component Constraint
[Definition:]  Constraints on the schema components themselves, i.e. conditions components must satisfy to be components at all. Located in the sixth sub-section of the per-component sections of Schema Component Details (§3) and tabulated in Schema Component Constraints (§C.4).
Schema Representation Constraint
[Definition:]  Constraints on the representation of schema components in XML beyond those which are expressed in Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A). Located in the third sub-section of the per-component sections of Schema Component Details (§3) and tabulated in Schema Representation Constraints (§C.3).
Validation Rules
[Definition:]  Contributions to ·validation· associated with schema components. Located in the fourth sub-section of the per-component sections of Schema Component Details (§3) and tabulated in Validation Rules (§C.1).
Schema Information Set Contribution
[Definition:]  Augmentations to ·post-schema-validation infoset·s expressed by schema components, which follow as a consequence of ·validation· and/or ·assessment·. Located in the fifth sub-section of the per-component sections of Schema Component Details (§3) and tabulated in Contributions to the post-schema-validation infoset (§C.2).

The last of these, schema information set contributions, are not as new as they might at first seem. XML validation augments the XML information set in similar ways, for example by providing values for attributes not present in instances, and by implicitly exploiting type information for normalization or access. (As an example of the latter case, consider the effect of NMTOKENS on attribute white space, and the semantics of ID and IDREF.) By including schema information set contributions, this specification makes explicit some features that XML leaves implicit.

previous sub-section next sub-section2.4 Conformance

This specification describes three levels of conformance for schema aware processors. The first is required of all processors. Support for the other two will depend on the application environments for which the processor is intended.

[Definition:]  Minimally conforming processors must completely and correctly implement the ·Schema Component Constraints·, ·Validation Rules·, and ·Schema Information Set Contributions· contained in this specification.

[Definition:]  ·Minimally conforming· processors which accept schemas represented in the form of XML documents as described in Layer 2: Schema Documents, Namespaces and Composition (§4.2) are additionally said to provide conformance to the XML Representation of Schemasbe schema-document aware. Such processors must, when processing schema documents, completely and correctly implement all ·Schema Representation Constraints· in this specification, and must adhere exactly to the specifications in Schema Component Details (§3) for mapping the contents of such documents to ·schema components· for use in ·validation· and ·assessment·.

[Definition:]  A ·minimally conforming· processor which is not ·schema-document aware· is said to be a non-schema-document-aware processor.

Note: By separating the conformance requirements relating to the concrete syntax of XML schema documents, this specification admits processors which use schemas stored in optimized binary representations, dynamically created schemas represented as programming language data structures, or implementations in which particular schemas are compiled into executable code such as C or Java. Such processors can be said to be ·minimally conforming· but not necessarily in ·conformance to the XML Representation of Schemas··schema-document aware·.

[Definition:]  Fully conformingWeb-aware processors are network-enabled processors which are not only both ·minimally conforming· and ·in conformance to the XML Representation of Schemasschema-document aware·, but which additionally must be capable of accessing schema documents from the World Wide Web according toas described in Representation of Schemas on the World Wide Web (§2.7) and How schema definitions are located on the Web (§4.3.2). .

Note: Although this specification provides just these three standard levels of conformance, it is anticipated that other conventions can be established in the future. For example, the World Wide Web Consortium is considering conventions for packaging on the Web a variety of resources relating to individual documents and namespaces. Should such developments lead to new conventions for representing schemas, or for accessing them on the Web, new levels of conformance can be established and named at that time. There is no need to modify or republish this specification to define such additional levels of conformance.

See Schemas and Namespaces: Access and Composition (§4) for a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms supporting these levels of conformance.

previous sub-section next sub-section2.5 Names and Symbol Spaces

As discussed in XML Schema Abstract Data Model (§2.2), most schema components (may) have ·names·. If all such names were assigned from the same "pool", then it would be impossible to have, for example, a simple type definition and an element declaration both with the name "title" in a given ·target namespace·.

Therefore [Definition:]  this specification introduces the term symbol space to denote a collection of names, each of which is unique with respect to the others. A symbol space is similar to the non-normative concept of namespace partition introduced in [XML-Namespaces 1.1]. There is a single distinct symbol space within a given ·target namespace· for each kind of definition and declaration component identified in XML Schema Abstract Data Model (§2.2), except that within a target namespace, simple type definitions and complex type definitions share a symbol space. Within a given symbol space, names are unique, but the same name may appear in more than one symbol space without conflict. For example, the same name can appear in both a type definition and an element declaration, without conflict or necessary relation between the two.

Locally scoped attribute and element declarations are special with regard to symbol spaces. Every complex type definition defines its own local attribute and element declaration symbol spaces, where these symbol spaces are distinct from each other and from any of the other symbol spaces. So, for example, two complex type definitions having the same target namespace can contain a local attribute declaration for the unqualified name "priority", or contain a local element declaration for the name "address", without conflict or necessary relation between the two.

previous sub-section next sub-section2.6 Schema-Related Markup in Documents Being Validated

The XML representation of schema components uses a vocabulary identified by the namespace name http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema. For brevity, the text and examples in this specification use the prefix xs: to stand for this namespace; in practice, any prefix can be used.

Issue (RQ-153i):Issue 3047 (RQ-153 XSD 1.1 namespace)

This specification must choose either to use the same namespace as XML Schema 1.0, or to use a different namespace, or to use more than one namespace. An explicit decision should be made.

XML Schema: Structures also defines several attributes for direct use in any XML documents. These attributes are in a different namespace, which has the namespace name http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance. For brevity, the text and examples in this specification use the prefix xsi: to stand for this latter namespace; in practice, any prefix can be used. All schema processors have appropriate attribute declarations for these attributes built in, see Attribute Declaration for the 'type' attribute (§3.2.7), Attribute Declaration for the 'nil' attribute (§3.2.7), Attribute Declaration for the 'schemaLocation' attribute (§3.2.7) and Attribute Declaration for the 'noNamespaceSchemaLocation' attribute (§3.2.7).

2.6.1 xsi:type

The Simple Type Definition (§2.2.1.2) or Complex Type Definition (§2.2.1.3) used in ·validation· of an element is usually determined by reference to the appropriate schema components. An element information item in an instance may, however, explicitly assert its type using the attribute xsi:type. The value of this attribute is a ·QName·; see QName Interpretation (§3.15.3) for the means by which the ·QName· is associated with a type definition.

2.6.2 xsi:nil

XML Schema: Structures introduces a mechanism for signaling that an element must be accepted as ·valid· when it has no content despite a content type which does not require or even necessarily allow empty content. An element may be ·valid· without content if it has the attribute xsi:nil with the value true. An element so labeled must be empty, but can carry attributes if permitted by the corresponding complex type.

3 Schema Component Details

next sub-section3.1 Introduction

The following sections provide full details on the composition of all schema components, together with their XML representations and their contributions to ·assessment·. Each section is devoted to a single component, with separate subsections for

  1. properties: their values and significance
  2. XML representation and the mapping to properties
  3. constraints on representation
  4. validation rules
  5. ·post-schema-validation infoset· contributions
  6. constraints on the components themselves

The sub-sections immediately below introduce conventions and terminology used throughout the component sections.

3.1.1 Components and Properties

Components are defined in terms of their properties, and each property in turn is defined by giving its range, that is the values it may have. This can be understood as defining a schema as a labeled directed graph, where the root is a schema, every other vertex is a schema component or a literal (string, boolean, numberdecimal) and every labeled edge is a property. The graph is not acyclic: multiple copies of components with the same name in the same ·symbol space· must not exist, so in some cases re-entrant chains of properties will exist. Equality of components for the purposes of this specification is always defined as equality of names (including target namespaces) within symbol spaces.

Issue (RQ-125i):Issue 2837 (RQ-125 identity of anonymous types), Issue 2842 (RQ-134 inherited portions of content model)

Version 1.0 was deliberately reticent in stating identity conditions for components. With hindsight this was a mistake, and will be corrected.

Resolution:

Add {scope} property to type definition components which will either be the enclosing element declaration or "global", by analogy with element declarations {scope}. [For further context, see F2F 2004-03-12, section RQ-125 (W3C-member-only link).]

This change will solve the anonymous type equality problem by giving an unequivocal answer to the "who am I?" question for such types by way of the answer "Your identity is determined by your scope's identity."

Note: A schema and its components as defined in this chapter are an idealization of the information a schema-aware processor requires: implementations are not constrained in how they provide it. In particular, no implications about literal embedding versus indirection follow from the use below of language such as "properties . . . having . . . components as values".

Component properties are simply named values. Most properties have either other components or literals (that is, strings or booleans or enumerated keywords) for values, but in a few cases, where more complex values are involved, [Definition:]  a property value may itself be a collection of named values, which we call a property record.

[Definition:]  Throughout this specification, the term absent is used as a distinguished property value denoting absence. Again this should not be interpreting as constraining implementations, as for instance between using a null value for such properties or not representing them at all.

Any property not identified as optional is required to be presentdefined as always present; optional properties which are not present are taken to have ·absent· as their value. Any property identified as a having a set, subset or list value may have an empty value unless this is explicitly ruled out: this is not the same as ·absent·. Any property value identified as a superset or subset of some set may be equal to that set, unless a proper superset or subset is explicitly called for. By 'string' in Part 1 of this specification is meant a sequence of ISO 10646 characters identified as legal XML characters in [XML 1.1].

Note: It is implementation-defined whether a schema processor uses the definition of legal character from [XML 1.1] or [XML 1.0].

3.1.2 XML Representations of Components

The principal purpose of XML Schema: Structures is to define a set of schema components that constrain the contents of instances and augment the information sets thereof. Although no external representation of schemas is required for this purpose, such representations will obviously be widely used. To provide for this in an appropriate and interoperable way, this specification provides a normative XML representation for schemas which makes provision for every kind of schema component. [Definition:]  A document in this form (i.e. a <schema> element information item) is a schema document. For the schema document as a whole, and its constituents, the sections below define correspondences between element information items (with declarations in Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A) and DTD for Schemas (non-normative) (§K)) and schema components. All the element information items in the XML representation of a schema must be in the XML Schema namespace, that is their [namespace name] must be http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema. Although a common way of creating the XML Infosets which are or contain ·schema documents· will be using an XML parser, this is not required: any mechanism which constructs conformant infosets as defined in [XML-Infoset] is a possible starting point.

Two aspects of the XML representations of components presented in the following sections are constant across them all:

  1. All of them allow attributes qualified with namespace names other than the XML Schema namespace itself: these appear as annotations in the corresponding schema component;
  2. All of them allow an <annotation> as their first child, for human-readable documentation and/or machine-targeted information.

3.1.3 The Mapping between XML Representations and Components

For each kind of schema component there is a corresponding normative XML representation. The sections below describe the correspondences between the properties of each kind of schema component on the one hand and the properties of information items in that XML representation on the other, together with constraints on that representation above and beyond those implicit in the Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A).

The language used is as if the correspondences were mappings from XML representation to schema component, but the mapping in the other direction, and therefore the correspondence in the abstract, can always be constructed therefrom.

In discussing the mapping from XML representations to schema components below, the value of a component property is often determined by the value of an attribute information item, one of the [attributes] of an element information item. Since schema documents are constrained by the Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A), there is always a simple type definition associated with any such attribute information item. [Definition:]  The phrase actual value is used to refer to the member of the value space of the simple type definition associated with an attribute information item which corresponds to its ·normalized value·. This will often be a string, but may also be an integer, a boolean, a URI reference, etc. This term is also occasionally used with respect to element or attribute information items in a document being ·validated·.

Many properties are identified below as having other schema components or sets of components as values. For the purposes of exposition, the definitions in this section assume that (unless the property is explicitly identified as optional) all such values are in fact present. When schema components are constructed from XML representations involving reference by name to other components, this assumption may be violated if one or more references cannot be resolved. This specification addresses the matter of missing components in a uniform manner, described in Missing Sub-components (§5.3): no mention of handling missing components will be found in the individual component descriptions below.

Forward reference to named definitions and declarations is allowed, both within and between ·schema documents·. By the time the component corresponding to an XML representation which contains a forward reference is actually needed for ·validation· an appropriately-named component may have become available to discharge the reference: see Schemas and Namespaces: Access and Composition (§4) for details.

3.1.4 White Space Normalization during Validation

Throughout this specification, [Definition:]  the initial value of some attribute information item is the value of the [normalized value] property of that item. Similarly, the initial value of an element information item is the string composed of, in order, the [character code] of each character information item in the [children] of that element information item.

The above definition means that comments and processing instructions, even in the midst of text, are ignored for all ·validation· purposes.

[Definition:]  The normalized value of an element or attribute information item is an ·initial value· whose white space, if any, has been normalized according to the value of the whiteSpace facet of the simple type definition used in its ·validation·:

preserve
No normalization is done, the value is the ·normalized value·
replace
All occurrences of #x9 (tab), #xA (line feed) and #xD (carriage return) are replaced with #x20 (space).
collapse
Subsequent to the replacements specified above under replace, contiguous sequences of #x20s are collapsed to a single #x20, and initial and/or final #x20s are deleted.

If the simple type definition used in an item's ·validation· is the ·simple ur-type definition·, then the ·normalized value· must be determined as in the preserve case above.

There are three alternative validation rules which may supply the necessary background for the above: Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4) (clause 3), Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4) (clause 3.1.3) or Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4) (clause 2.2).

These three levels of normalization correspond to the processing mandated in XML for element content, CDATA attribute content and tokenized attributed content, respectively. See Attribute Value Normalization in [XML 1.1] for the precedent for replace and collapse for attributes. Extending this processing to element content is necessary to ensure a consistent ·validation· semantics for simple types, regardless of whether they are applied to attributes or elements. Performing it twice in the case of attributes whose [normalized value] has already been subject to replacement or collapse on the basis of information in a DTD is necessary to ensure consistent treatment of attributes regardless of the extent to which DTD-based information has been made use of during infoset construction.

Note: Even when DTD-based information has been appealed to, and Attribute Value Normalization has taken place, the above definition of ·normalized value· may mean further normalization takes place, as for instance when character entity references in attribute values result in white space characters other than spaces in their ·initial value·s.
Note: The values replace and collapse may appear to provide a convenient way to "unwrap" text (i.e. undo the effects of pretty-printing and word-wrapping). In some cases, especially highly constrained data consisting of lists of artificial tokens such as part numbers or other identifiers, this appearance is correct. For natural-language data, however, the whitespace processing prescribed for these values is not only unreliable but will systematically remove the information needed to perform unwrapping correctly. For Asian scripts, for example, a correct unwrapping process will replace line boundaries not with blanks but with zero-width separators or nothing. In consequence, it is normally unwise to use these values for natural-language data, or for any data other than lists of highly constrained tokens.

previous sub-section next sub-section3.2 Attribute Declarations

Attribute declarations provide for:

  • Local ·validation· of attribute information item values using a simple type definition;
  • Specifying default or fixed values for attribute information items.
Example
<xs:attribute name="age" type="xs:positiveInteger" use="required"/>
The XML representation of an attribute declaration.

3.2.1 The Attribute Declaration Schema Component

The attribute declaration schema component has the following properties:

Property Record: Scope
{parent}
A Complex Type Definition component. Required if {variety} is local, otherwise must be ·absent·Must be ·absent· if {variety} is global, otherwise optional.

The {name} property must match the local part of the names of attributes being ·validated·.

The value of the attribute must conform to the supplied {type definition}.

A ·non-absent· value of the {target namespace} property provides for ·validation· of namespace-qualified attribute information items (which must be explicitly prefixed in the character-level form of XML documents). ·Absent· values of {target namespace} ·validate· unqualified (unprefixed) items.

A {scope} ofwith {variety} global identifies attribute declarations available for use in complex type definitions throughout the schema. Locally scoped declarations are available for use only within the complex type definition identified by the {scope}'s {parent} property. This property is ·absent· in the case of declarations within attribute group definitions: their scope will be determined when they are used in the construction of complex type definitions.

{value constraint} reproduces the functions of XML default and #FIXED attribute values. A {variety} of default specifies that the attribute is to appear unconditionally in the ·post-schema-validation infoset·, with the supplied value{value} and {lexical form} used whenever the attribute is not actually present; fixed indicates that the attribute value if present must equal the supplied constraint valuebe identical to {value}, and if absent receives the supplied value{value} and {lexical form} as for default. Note that it is values that are supplied and/or checked, not strings.

See Annotations (§3.13) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.

Note: A more complete and formal presentation of the semantics of {name}, {target namespace} and {value constraint} is provided in conjunction with other aspects of complex type ·validation· (see Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4).)

[XML-Infoset] distinguishes attributes with names such as xmlns or xmlns:xsl from ordinary attributes, identifying them as [namespace attributes]. Accordingly, it is unnecessary and in fact not possible for schemas to contain attribute declarations corresponding to such namespace declarations, see xmlns Not Allowed (§3.2.6). No means is provided in this specification to supply a default value for a namespace declaration.

3.2.2 XML Representation of Attribute Declaration Schema Components

Issue (RQ-121i):Issue 2835 (RQ-121 prohibited + fixed)

Neither the prose of this specification nor the schema for schema documents rules out XML representations of attribute declarations containing both use='prohibited' and fixed='...'. It will be made clear that this is not an error and that ‘prohibited’ wins.

The XML representation for an attribute declaration schema component is an <attribute> element information item. It specifies a simple type definition for an attribute either by reference or explicitly, and may provide default information. The correspondences between the properties of the information item and properties of the component are as follows:

XML Representation Summary: attribute Element Information Item

<attribute
  default = string
  fixed = string
  form = (qualified | unqualified)
  id = ID
  name = NCName
  ref = QName
  type = QName
  use = (optional | prohibited | required) : optional
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, simpleType?)
</attribute>

If the <attribute> element information item has <schema> as its parent, the corresponding schema component is as follows:
Attribute Declaration Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
 
The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none.
 
The simple type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise the simple type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the type [attribute], if present, otherwise the ·simple ur-type definition·.
 
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
global
 
If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting ofa Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
Property
Value
either default or fixed, as appropriate
the ·actual value· (with respect to the {type definition}) of thatthe [attribute]
 
The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
otherwise if the <attribute> element information item has <complexType> or <attributeGroup> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is absent, it corresponds to an attribute use with properties as follows (unless use='prohibited', in which case the item corresponds to nothing at all):
Attribute Use Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
true if the use [attribute] is present with ·actual value· required, otherwise false.
 
See the Attribute Declaration mapping immediately below.
 
If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting of Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
Property
Value
either default or fixed, as appropriate
the ·actual value· (with respect to the {type definition} of the {attribute declaration}) of thatthe [attribute]
Attribute Declaration Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
 
If form is present and its ·actual value· is qualified, or if form is absent and the ·actual value· of attributeFormDefault on the <schema> ancestor is qualified, then the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none, otherwise ·absent·.
 
The simple type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise the simple type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the type [attribute], if present, otherwise the ·simple ur-type definition·.
 
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
If the <attribute> element information item has <complexType> as an ancestor, the Complex Type Definition corresponding to that item, otherwise (the <attribute> element information item is within an <attributeGroup> definition), ·absent·.
 
 
The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
otherwise (the <attribute> element information item has <complexType> or <attributeGroup> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is present), it corresponds to an attribute use with properties as follows (unless use='prohibited', in which case the item corresponds to nothing at all):
Attribute Use Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
true if the use [attribute] is present with ·actual value· required, otherwise false.
 
The (top-level) attribute declaration ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the ref [attribute]
 
If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting of Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
Property
Value
either default or fixed, as appropriate
the ·actual value· (with respect to the {type definition} of the {attribute declaration}) of thatthe [attribute]

Attribute declarations can appear at the top level of a schema document, or within complex type definitions, either as complete (local) declarations, or by reference to top-level declarations, or within attribute group definitions. For complete declarations, top-level or local, the type attribute is used when the declaration can use a built-in or pre-declared simple type definition. Otherwise an anonymous <simpleType> is provided inline.

The default when no simple type definition is referenced or provided is the ·simple ur-type definition·, which imposes no constraints at all.

Attribute information items ·validated· by a top-level declaration must be qualified with the {target namespace} of that declaration (if this is ·absent·, the item must be unqualified).. If the {target namespace} is ·absent·, the item must be unqualified. Control over whether attribute information items ·validated· by a local declaration must be similarly qualified or not is provided by the form [attribute], whose default is provided by the attributeFormDefault [attribute] on the enclosing <schema>, via its determination of {target namespace}.

The names for top-level attribute declarations are in their own ·symbol space·. The names of locally-scoped attribute declarations reside in symbol spaces local to the type definition which contains them.

3.2.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Attribute Declarations

Schema Representation Constraint: Attribute Declaration Representation OK
In addition to the conditions imposed on <attribute> element information items by the schema for schemas, all of the following also apply:
1 default and fixed must not both be present.
2 If default and use are both present, use must have the ·actual value· optional.
3 If the item's parent is not <schema>, then all of the following must be true:
3.1 One of ref or name is present, but not both.
3.2 If ref is present, then all of <simpleType>, form and type are absent.
4 type and <simpleType> must not both be present.
5 The corresponding attribute declaration must satisfy the conditions set out in Constraints on Attribute Declaration Schema Components (§3.2.6).

3.2.4 Attribute Declaration Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Attribute Locally Valid
For an attribute information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to an attribute declaration all of the following must be true:
1 The declaration is not ·absent· (see Missing Sub-components (§5.3) for how this can fail to be the case).
2 Its {type definition} is not absent.
3 The item's ·normalized value· is locally ·valid· with respect to that {type definition} as per String Valid (§3.14.4).
4 The item's ·actual value· matches the value{value} of the {value constraint}, if it is present and its {variety} is fixed.
Validation Rule: Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute)
The schema-validity assessment of an attribute information item depends on its ·validation· alone.

[Definition:]  During ·validation·, associations between element and attribute information items among the [children] and [attributes] on the one hand, and element and attribute declarations on the other, are established as a side-effect. Such declarations are called the context-determined declarations. See clause 3.1 (in Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4)) for attribute declarations, clause 2 (in Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle) (§3.9.4)) for element declarations.

For an attribute information item's schema-validity to have been assessed all of the following must be true:

1 A ·non-absent· attribute declaration is known for it, namely one of the following:
1.1 A declaration which has been established as its ·context-determined declaration·;
1.2 A declaration resolved to by its [local name] and [namespace name] as defined by QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4), provided its ·context-determined declaration· is not skip.
2 Its ·validity· with respect to that declaration has been evaluated as per Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4).
3 Both clause 1 and clause 2 of Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4) are satisfied.

[Definition:]  For attributes, there is no difference between assessment and strict assessment, so if the above holds, the attribute information item has been strictly assessed if and only if its schema-validity has been assessed.

3.2.5 Attribute Declaration Information Set Contributions

Schema Information Set Contribution: Assessment Outcome (Attribute)
Issue (RQ-143i):Issue 2827 (RQ-143 attribute assessment)

An attribute with no type declaration cannot be 'assessed', as defined by (Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute)), so it will never have any PSVI properties, whereas it would be natural for it to have [validation attempted] = none and [validity] = notKnown. This will be fixed.

Resolution:

It is likely that the current backward-chaining approach to defining schema-validity assessment will be reworked, in which case this will get fixed as part of that.

If the schema-validity of an attribute information item has been assessed as per Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute) (§3.2.4), then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· it has properties as follows:
PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[validation context]
The nearest ancestor element information item with a [schema information] property.
[validity]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If it was ·strictly assessed·, then the appropriate case among the following:
1.1 If it was ·valid· as defined by Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4), then valid;
1.2 otherwise invalid.
2 otherwise notKnown.
[validation attempted]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If it was ·strictly assessed·, then full;
2 otherwise none.
[schema specified]
infoset. See Attribute Default Value (§3.4.5) for the other possible value.
Schema Information Set Contribution: Validation Failure (Attribute)
If and only if the local ·validity·, as defined by Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4) above, of an attribute information item has been assessed, then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the item has a property:
PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[schema error code]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If the item is not ·valid··invalid·, then a list. Applications wishing to provide information as to the reason(s) for the ·validation· failure are encouraged to record one or more error codes (see Outcome Tabulations (normative) (§C)) herein.
2 otherwise ·absent·.
Schema Information Set Contribution: Attribute Declaration
If an attribute information item is ·valid· with respect to an attribute declaration as per Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4), then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the attribute information item may, at processor option, have a property:
PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[attribute declaration]
An ·item isomorphic· to the declaration component itself.
Schema Information Set Contribution: Attribute Validated by Type
If clause 3 of Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4) applies with respect to an attribute information item, then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the attribute information item has a property:
PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
Furthermore, the item has one of the following alternative sets of properties:

Either

PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[type definition]
An ·item isomorphic· to the relevant attribute declaration's {type definition} component.
[member type definition]
If and only if that type definition has {variety} union, then an ·item isomorphic· to that member of its {member type definitions}basic member of its transitive membership which actually ·validated· the attribute item's [normalized value].
or
PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[type definition type]
simple.
[type definition namespace]
The {target namespace} of the ·type definition·.
[type definition anonymous]
true if the {name} of the ·type definition· is ·absent·, otherwise false.
[type definition name]
The {name} of the ·type definition·, if it is not ·absent·. If it is ·absent·, schema processors may, but need not, provide a value unique to the definition.
If the ·type definition· has {variety} union, then calling [Definition:]   that member of the {member type definitions}basic member of its transitive membership which actually ·validated· the attribute item's ·normalized value· the actual member type definition, there are three additional properties:
PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[member type definition namespace]
The {target namespace} of the ·actual member type definition·.
[member type definition anonymous]
true if the {name} of the ·actual member type definition· is ·absent·, otherwise false.
[member type definition name]
The {name} of the ·actual member type definition·, if it is not ·absent·. If it is ·absent·, schema processors may, but need not, provide a value unique to the definition.
The first (·item isomorphic·) alternative above is provided for applications such as query processors which need access to the full range of details about an item's ·assessment·, for example the type hierarchy; the second, for lighter-weight processors for whom representing the significant parts of the type hierarchy as information items might be a significant burden.

Also, if and only if the declaration has a {value constraint}, the item has a property:

PSVI Contributions for attribute information items
[schema default]
The canonical lexical representation of{lexical form} of the declaration's {value constraint} value. 's {value}.
If the attribute information item was not ·strictly assessed·, then instead of the values specified above,
1 The item's [schema normalized value] property has the ·initial value· of the item as its value;
2 The [type definition] and [member type definition] properties, or their alternatives, are based on the ·simple ur-type definition·.

3.2.6 Constraints on Attribute Declaration Schema Components

All attribute declarations (see Attribute Declarations (§3.2)) must satisfy the following constraints.

Schema Component Constraint: xmlns Not Allowed
The {name} of an attribute declaration must not match xmlns.
Note: The {name} of an attribute is an ·NCName·, which implicitly prohibits attribute declarations of the form xmlns:*.
Schema Component Constraint: xsi: Not Allowed
The {target namespace} of an attribute declaration, whether local or top-level, must not match http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance (unless it is one of the four built-in declarations given in the next section).
Note: This reinforces the special status of these attributes, so that they not only need not be declared to be allowed in instances, but must not be declared. It also removes any temptation to experiment with supplying global or fixed values for e.g. xsi:type or xsi:nil, which would be seriously misleading, as they would have no effect.

3.2.7 Built-in Attribute Declarations

There are four attribute declarations present in every schema by definition:

Property
Value
type
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
The built-in QName simple type definition
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
global
Property
Value
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
The built-in boolean simple type definition
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
global
Property
Value
schemaLocation
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
An anonymous simple type definition, as follows:
Property
Value
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
The built-in anyURI simple type definition
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
global
Property
Value
noNamespaceSchemaLocation
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
The built-in anyURI simple type definition
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
global

previous sub-section next sub-section3.3 Element Declarations

Element declarations provide for:

  • Local ·validation· of element information item values using a type definition;
  • Specifying default or fixed values for an element information items;
  • Establishing uniquenesses and reference constraint relationships among the values of related elements and attributes;
  • Controlling the substitutability of elements through the mechanism of ·element substitution groups·.
Example
<xs:element name="PurchaseOrder" type="PurchaseOrderType"/>

<xs:element name="gift">
 <xs:complexType>
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="birthday" type="xs:date"/>
   <xs:element ref="PurchaseOrder"/>
  </xs:sequence>
 </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
XML representations of several different types of element declaration

3.3.1 The Element Declaration Schema Component

The element declaration schema component has the following properties:

{parent}
A Complex Type Definition component. Required if {variety} is local, otherwise must be ·absent·Must be ·absent· if {variety} is global, otherwise optional.

The {name} property must match the local part of the names of element information items being ·validated·.

A {scope} ofwith {variety} global identifies element declarations available for use in content models throughout the schema. Locally scoped declarations are available for use only within the complex type identified by the {scope}'s {parent} property. This property is ·absent· in the case of declarations within named model groups: their scope will be determined when they are used in the construction of complex type definitions.

A ·non-absent· value of the {target namespace} property provides for ·validation· of namespace-qualified element information items. ·Absent· values of {target namespace} ·validate· unqualified items.

An element information item is ·valid· only if it satisfies the {type definition}. For such an item, schema information set contributions appropriate to the {type definition} are added to the corresponding element information item in the ·post-schema-validation infoset·.

If {nillable} is true, then an element can also be ·valid· if it carries the namespace qualified attribute with [local name] nil from namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and value true (see xsi:nil (§2.6.2)) even if it has no text or element content despite a {content type} which would otherwise require content. Formal details of element ·validation· are described in Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4).

{value constraint} establishes a default or fixed value for an element. If a {value constraint} with a {variety} of default is specifiedpresent, and if the element being ·validated· is empty, then the canonical form of the supplied constraint valuethe {value constraint}'s {lexical form} becomes the [schema normalized value] of the ·validated· element in the ·post-schema-validation infoset·. If fixed is specified, then the element's content must either be empty, in which case fixed behaves as default, or its value must matchbe intentical to the supplied constraint value{value constraint}'s {value}.

Note: The provision of defaults for elements goes beyond what is possible in XML DTDs, and does not exactly correspond to defaults for attributes. In particular, an element with a non-empty {value constraint} whose simple type definition includes the empty string in its lexical space will nonetheless never receive that value, because the {value constraint} will override it.

{identity-constraint definitions} express constraints establishing uniquenesses and reference relationships among the values of related elements and attributes. See Identity-constraint Definitions (§3.11).

Element declarations are potential members of the substitution group, if any, identified by {substitution group affiliation}. Potential membership is transitive but not symmetric; an element declaration is a potential member of any group of which its {substitution group affiliation} is a potential member. Actual membership may be blocked by the effects of {substitution group exclusions} or {disallowed substitutions}, see below.

An empty {substitution group exclusions} allows a declaration to be nominated as the {substitution group affiliation} of other element declarations having the same {type definition} or types derived therefrom. The explicit values of {substitution group exclusions} rule out element declarations having types which are extensions or restrictions respectively of {type definition}. If both values are specified, then the declaration must not be nominated as the {substitution group affiliation} of any other declaration.

The supplied values for {disallowed substitutions} determine whether an element declaration appearing in a ·content model· will be prevented from additionally ·validating· elements (a) with an xsi:type (§2.6.1) that identifies an extension or restriction of the type of the declared element, and/or (b) from ·validating· elements which are in the substitution group headed by the declared element. If {disallowed substitutions} is empty, then all derived types and substitution group members are allowed.

Element declarations for which {abstract} is true can appear in content models only when substitution is allowed; such declarations must not themselves ever be used to ·validate· element content.

See Annotations (§3.13) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.

3.3.2 XML Representation of Element Declaration Schema Components

The XML representation for an element declaration schema component is an <element> element information item. It specifies a type definition for an element either by reference or explicitly, and may provide occurrence and default information. The correspondences between the properties of the information item and properties of the component(s) it corresponds to are as follows:

XML Representation Summary: element Element Information Item

<element
  abstract = boolean : false
  block = (#all | List of (extension | restriction | substitution))
  default = string
  final = (#all | List of (extension | restriction))
  fixed = string
  form = (qualified | unqualified)
  id = ID
  maxOccurs = (nonNegativeInteger | unbounded)  : 1
  minOccurs = nonNegativeInteger : 1
  name = NCName
  nillable = boolean : false
  ref = QName
  substitutionGroup = QName
  type = QName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, ((simpleType | complexType)?, (unique | key | keyref)*))
</element>

If the <element> element information item has <schema> as its parent, the corresponding schema component is as follows:
Element Declaration Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
The ·actual value· of the name [attribute].
 
The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none.
 
A Scope as follows
Property
Value
global
 
The type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> or <complexType> element information item in the [children], if either is present, otherwise the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the type [attribute], otherwise the {type definition} of the element declaration ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the substitutionGroup [attribute], if present, otherwise the ·ur-type definition··definition of anyType·.
 
The ·actual value· of the nillable [attribute], if present, otherwise false.
 
If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting ofa Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
[Definition:]  Use the name effective simple type definition for the {type definition}, if it is a simple type definition, or, if the {type definition}'s {content type} has {variety} simple, that {content type}'s {simple type definition}, or else the built-in string simple type definition).
Property
Value
either default or fixed, as appropriate
the ·actual value· (with respect to the ·effective simple type definition·) of thatthe [attribute]
 
A set consisting of the identity-constraint-definitions corresponding to all the <key>, <unique> and <keyref> element information items in the [children], if any, otherwise the empty set.
 
The element declaration ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the substitutionGroup [attribute], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
 
A set depending on the ·actual value· of the block [attribute], if present, otherwise on the ·actual value· of the blockDefault [attribute] of the ancestor <schema> element information item, if present, otherwise on the empty string. Call this the EBV (for effective block value). Then the value of this property is the appropriate case among the following:
1 If the EBV is the empty string, then the empty set;
2 If the EBV is #all, then {extension, restriction, substitution};
3 otherwise a set with members drawn from the set above, each being present or absent depending on whether the ·actual value· (which is a list) contains an equivalently named item.
Note: Although the blockDefault [attribute] of <schema> may include values other than extension, restriction or substitution, those values are ignored in the determination of {disallowed substitutions} for element declarations (they are used elsewhere).
 
As for {disallowed substitutions} above, but using the final and finalDefault [attributes] in place of the block and blockDefault [attributes] and with the relevant set being {extension, restriction}.
 
The ·actual value· of the abstract [attribute], if present, otherwise false.
 
The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
otherwise if the <element> element information item has <complexType> or <group> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is absent, the corresponding schema components are as follows (unless minOccurs=maxOccurs=0, in which case the item corresponds to no component at all):
Particle Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
The ·actual value· of the minOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
 
unbounded, if the maxOccurs [attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
 
A (local) element declaration as given below.
An element declaration as in the first case above, with the exception of its {target namespace} and {scope} properties, which are as below:
Element Declaration Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
If form is present and its ·actual value· is qualified, or if form is absent and the ·actual value· of elementFormDefault on the <schema> ancestor is qualified, then the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none, otherwise ·absent·.
 
A Scope as follows:
Property
Value
If the <element> element information item has <complexType> as an ancestor, the Complex Type Definition corresponding to that item, otherwise (the <element> element information item is within a named <group> definition), ·absent·.
otherwise (the <element> element information item has <complexType> or <group> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is present), the corresponding schema component is as follows (unless minOccurs=maxOccurs=0, in which case the item corresponds to no component at all):
Particle Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
The ·actual value· of the minOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
 
unbounded, if the maxOccurs [attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
 
The (top-level) element declaration ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the ref [attribute].

<element> corresponds to an element declaration, and allows the type definition of that declaration to be specified either by reference or by explicit inclusion.

<element>s within <schema> produce global element declarations; <element>s within <group> or <complexType> produce either particles which contain global element declarations (if there's a ref attribute) or local declarations (otherwise). For complete declarations, top-level or local, the type attribute is used when the declaration can use a built-in or pre-declared type definition. Otherwise an anonymous <simpleType> or <complexType> is provided inline.

Element information items ·validated· by a top-level declaration must be qualified with the {target namespace} of that declaration (if this is ·absent·, the item must be unqualified).. If the {target namespace} is ·absent·, the item must be unqualified. Control over whether element information items ·validated· by a local declaration must be similarly qualified or not is provided by the form [attribute], whose default is provided by the elementFormDefault [attribute] on the enclosing <schema>, via its determination of {target namespace}.

As noted above the names for top-level element declarations are in a separate ·symbol space· from the symbol spaces for the names of type definitions, so there can (but need not be) a simple or complex type definition with the same name as a top-level element. As with attribute names, the names of locally-scoped element declarations with no {target namespace} reside in symbol spaces local to the type definition which contains them.

Note that the above allows for two levels of defaulting for unspecified type definitions. An <element> with no referenced or included type definition will correspond to an element declaration which has the same type definition as the head of its substitution group if it identifies one, otherwise the ·ur-type definition··definition of anyType·. This has the important consequence that the minimum valid element declaration, that is, one with only a name attribute and no contents, is also (nearly) the most general, validating any combination of text and element content and allowing any attributes, and providing for recursive validation where possible.

See below at XML Representation of Identity-constraint Definition Schema Components (§3.11.2) for <key>, <unique> and <keyref>.

Example
<xs:element name="unconstrained"/>

<xs:element name="emptyElt">
 <xs:complexType>
  <xs:attribute ...>. . .</xs:attribute>
 </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>

<xs:element name="contextOne">
 <xs:complexType>
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="myLocalElement" type="myFirstType"/>
   <xs:element ref="globalElement"/>
  </xs:sequence>
 </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>

<xs:element name="contextTwo">
 <xs:complexType>
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="myLocalElement" type="mySecondType"/>
   <xs:element ref="globalElement"/>
  </xs:sequence>
 </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
The first example above declares an element whose type, by default, is the ·ur-type definition··anyType·. The second uses an embedded anonymous complex type definition.

The last two examples illustrate the use of local element declarations. Instances of myLocalElement within contextOne will be constrained by myFirstType, while those within contextTwo will be constrained by mySecondType.

Note: The possibility that differing attribute declarations and/or content models would apply to elements with the same name in different contexts is an extension beyond the expressive power of a DTD in XML.
Example
 <xs:complexType name="facet">
  <xs:complexContent>
   <xs:extension base="xs:annotated">
    <xs:attribute name="value" use="required"/>
   </xs:extension>
  </xs:complexContent>
 </xs:complexType>

 <xs:element name="facet" type="xs:facet" abstract="true"/>

 <xs:element name="encoding" substitutionGroup="xs:facet">
  <xs:complexType>
   <xs:complexContent>
    <xs:restriction base="xs:facet">
     <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element ref="annotation" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
     <xs:attribute name="value" type="xs:encodings"/>
    </xs:restriction>
   </xs:complexContent>
  </xs:complexType>
 </xs:element>

 <xs:element name="period" substitutionGroup="xs:facet">
  <xs:complexType>
   <xs:complexContent>
    <xs:restriction base="xs:facet">
     <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element ref="annotation" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
     <xs:attribute name="value" type="xs:duration"/>
    </xs:restriction>
   </xs:complexContent>
  </xs:complexType>
 </xs:element>

 <xs:complexType name="datatype">
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element ref="facet" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
  </xs:sequence>
  <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:NCName" use="optional"/>
  . . .
 </xs:complexType>
An example from a previous version of the schema for datatypes. The facet type is defined and the facet element is declared to use it. The facet element is abstract -- it's only defined to stand as the head for a substitution group. Two further elements are declared, each a member of the facet substitution group. Finally a type is defined which refers to facet, thereby allowing either period or encoding (or any other member of the group).

3.3.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Element Declarations

Schema Representation Constraint: Element Declaration Representation OK
In addition to the conditions imposed on <element> element information items by the schema for schemas: all of the following must be true:
1 default and fixed are not both present.
2 If the item's parent is not <schema>, then all of the following are true:
2.1 One of ref or name is present, but not both.
2.2 If ref is present, then all of <complexType>, <simpleType>, <key>, <keyref>, <unique>, nillable, default, fixed, form, block and type are absent, i.e. only minOccurs, maxOccurs, id and <annotation> are allowed to appear together with ref.
3 The <element> element does not have both a <simpleType> or <complexType> child and a type attribute.
4 The corresponding particle and/or element declarations satisfy the conditions set out in Constraints on Element Declaration Schema Components (§3.3.6) and Constraints on Particle Schema Components (§3.9.6).

3.3.4 Element Declaration Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Element)
For an element information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to an element declaration all of the following must be true:
1 The declaration is not ·absent·.
2 Its {abstract} is false.
3 One of the following is true:
3.1 {nillable} is false, and there is no attribute information item among the element information item's [attributes] whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is nil.
3.2 {nillable} is true and one of the following is true
3.2.1 There is no such attribute information item.
3.2.2 There is such an attribute information item, and its ·actual value· is false.
3.2.3 There is such an attribute information item, and its ·actual value· is true, and all of the following are true:
3.2.3.1 The element information item has no character or element information item [children].
3.2.3.2 There is no fixed {value constraint} with {variety} fixed.
4 If there is an attribute information item among the element information item's [attributes] whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is type, then all of the following are true:
4.1 The ·normalized value· of that attribute information item is ·valid· with respect to the built-in QName simple type, as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4);
4.2 The ·local name· and ·namespace name· (as defined in QName Interpretation (§3.15.3)), of the ·actual value· of that attribute information item resolve to a type definition, as defined in QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4)[Definition:]  call this type definition the local type definition;
4.3 The ·local type definition· is validly derived from the {type definition} given the union of the {disallowed substitutions} and the {type definition}'s {prohibited substitutions}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if it is a complex type definition), or given {disallowed substitutions} as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6) (if it is a simple type definition).
[Definition:]  The phrase actual type definition occurs below. If the above three clauses are satisfied, this must be understood as referring to the ·local type definition·, otherwise to the {type definition}.
5 The appropriate case among the following is true:
5.1 If the declaration has a {value constraint}, and the item has neither element nor character [children], and clause 3.2 has not applied, then all of the following are true:
5.1.1 If the ·actual type definition· is a ·local type definition·, then the canonical lexical representation ofdeclaration's {value constraint} value. 's {value} is a valid default for the ·actual type definition· as defined in Element Default Valid (Immediate) (§3.3.6).
5.1.2 The element information item with the canonical lexical representation of{lexical form} of the declaration's {value constraint} value. 's {value} used as its ·normalized value· is ·valid· with respect to the ·actual type definition· as defined by Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4).
5.2 If the declaration has no {value constraint}, or the item has either element or character [children], or clause 3.2 has applied, then all of the following are true:
5.2.1 The element information item is ·valid· with respect to the ·actual type definition· as defined by Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4).
5.2.2 If there is a fixed {value constraint} with {variety} fixed and clause 3.2 has not applied, then all of the following are true:
5.2.2.1 The element information item has no element information item [children].
5.2.2.2 The appropriate case among the following must be true:
5.2.2.2.1 If the {content type} of the ·actual type definition· is a Complex Type Definition whose {content type}ishas {variety} mixed, then the ·initial value· of the item matches the canonical lexical representation of{lexical form} of the declaration's {value constraint} value. 's {value}.
5.2.2.2.2 If the {content type} of the ·actual type definition· is a Simple Type Definition or a Complex Type Definition whose {content type} is a simple type definitionhas {variety} simple, then the ·actual value· of the item matchesis identical to the canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value's {value}.

Editorial Note: Most of the above change is actually nothing to do with rq129, but is a fix for a long-standing bug, which called for the comparison of a value and a lexical form. Need to check if we decided on identical or equal.

6 The element information item is ·valid· with respect to each of the {identity-constraint definitions} as per Identity-constraint Satisfied (§3.11.4).
7 If the element information item is the ·validation root·, then it is ·valid· per Validation Root Valid (ID/IDREF) (§3.3.4).
Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Type)
For an element information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to a type definition all of the following must be true:
1 The type definition is not ·absent·;
2 It does not have {abstract} with value true.
3 The appropriate case among the following is true:
3.1 If the type definition is a simple type definition, then all of the following are true:
3.1.1 The element information item's [attributes] are empty, excepting those whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is one of type, nil, schemaLocation or noNamespaceSchemaLocation.
3.1.2 The element information item has no element information item [children].
3.1.3 If clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) did not apply, then the ·normalized value· is ·valid· with respect to the type definition as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4).
3.2 If the type definition is a complex type definition, then the element information item is ·valid· with respect to the type definition as per Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4);
Validation Rule: Validation Root Valid (ID/IDREF)
For an element information item which is the ·validation root· to be ·valid· all of the following must be true:
1 There is no ID/IDREF binding in the item's [ID/IDREF table] whose [binding] is the empty set.
2 There is no ID/IDREF binding in the item's [ID/IDREF table] whose [binding] has more than one member.

See ID/IDREF Table (§3.15.5) for the definition of ID/IDREF binding.

Note: The first clause above applies when there is a reference to an undefined ID. The second applies when there is a multiply-defined ID. They are separated out to ensure that distinct error codes (see Outcome Tabulations (normative) (§C)) are associated with these two cases.
Note: Although this rule applies at the ·validation root·, in practice processors, particularly streaming processors, may wish to detect and signal the clause 2 case as it arises.
Note: This reconstruction of [XML 1.1]'s ID/IDREF functionality is imperfect in that if the ·validation root· is not the document element of an XML document, the results will not necessarily be the same as those a validating parser would give were the document to have a DTD with equivalent declarations.
Validation Rule: Schema-Validity Assessment (Element)
The schema-validity assessment of an element information item depends on its ·validation· and the ·assessment· of its element information item children and associated attribute information items, if any.

So for an element information item's schema-validity to be assessed all of the following must be true:

1 One of the following is true:
1.1 All of the following are true:
1.1.1 A ·non-absent· element declaration is known for it, because one of the following is true
1.1.1.1 A declaration was stipulated by the processor (see Assessing Schema-Validity (§5.2)).
1.1.1.2 A declaration has been established as its ·context-determined declaration·.
1.1.1.3 All of the following are true:
1.1.1.3.1 Its ·context-determined declaration· is not skip.
1.1.1.3.2 Its [local name] and [namespace name] resolve to an element declaration as defined by QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4).
1.1.2 Its ·validity· with respect to that declaration has been evaluated as per Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4).
1.1.3 If that evaluation involved the evaluation of Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4), clause 1 thereof is satisfied.
1.2 All of the following are true:
1.2.1 A ·non-absent· type definition is known for it because one of the following is true
1.2.1.1 A type definition was stipulated by the processor (see Assessing Schema-Validity (§5.2)).
1.2.1.2 All of the following are true:
1.2.1.2.1 There is an attribute information item among the element information item's [attributes] whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is type.
1.2.1.2.2 The ·normalized value· of that attribute information item is ·valid· with respect to the built-in QName simple type, as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4).
1.2.1.2.3 The ·local name· and ·namespace name· (as defined in QName Interpretation (§3.15.3)), of the ·actual value· of that attribute information item resolve to a type definition, as defined in QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4) -- [Definition:]  call this type definition the local type definition.
1.2.1.2.4 If there is also a processor-stipulated type definition, the ·local type definition· is validly derived from that type definition given its {prohibited substitutions}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if it is a complex type definition), or given the empty set, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6) (if it is a simple type definition).
1.2.2 The element information item's ·validity· with respect to the ·local type definition· (if present and validly derived) or the processor-stipulated type definition (if no ·local type definition· is present) has been evaluated as per Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4).
2 The schema-validity of all the element information items among its [children] has been assessed as per Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (§3.3.4), and the schema-validity of all the attribute information items among its [attributes] has been assessed as per Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute) (§3.2.4).

[Definition:]  If either case of clause 1 above holds, the element information item has been strictly assessed.

If the item cannot be ·strictly assessed·, because neither clause 1.1 nor clause 1.2 above are satisfied, [Definition:]  an element information item's schema validity may be laxly assessed if and only if its ·context-determined declaration· is not skip by ·validating· with respect to the ·ur-type definition··definition of anyType· as per Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4).

Note: In general if clause 1.1 above holds clause 1.2 does not, and vice versa. When an xsi:type [attribute] is involved, however, clause 1.2 takes precedence, as is made clear in Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4).
Note: The {name} and {target namespace} properties are not mentioned above because they are checked during particle ·validation·, as per Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle) (§3.9.4).

3.3.5 Element Declaration Information Set Contributions

Schema Information Set Contribution: Assessment Outcome (Element)
If and only if the schema-validity of an element information item has been assessed as per Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (§3.3.4), then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· it has properties as follows:
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[validation context]
The nearest ancestor element information item with a [schema information] property (or this element item itself if it has such a property).
[validity]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If it was ·strictly assessed·, then the appropriate case among the following:
1.1 If all of the following are true:
1.1.1 One of the following is true:
1.1.2 Neither its [children] nor its [attributes] contains an information item (element or attribute respectively) whose [validity] is invalid.
1.1.3 Neither its [children] nor its [attributes] contains an information item (element or attribute respectively) with a ·context-determined declaration· of mustFind whose [validity] is notKnown.
, then valid;
1.2 otherwise invalid..
2 otherwise notKnown.
[validation attempted]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If it was ·strictly assessed· and neither its [children] nor its [attributes] contains an information item (element or attribute respectively) whose [validation attempted] is not full, then full;
2 If it was not ·strictly assessed· and neither its [children] nor its [attributes] contains an information item (element or attribute respectively) whose [validation attempted] is not none, then none;
3 otherwise partial.
Schema Information Set Contribution: Validation Failure (Element)
If and only if the local ·validity·, as defined by Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) above and/or Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4) below, of an element information item has been assessed, then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the item has a property:
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[schema error code]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If the item is not ·valid··invalid·, then a list. Applications wishing to provide information as to the reason(s) for the ·validation· failure are encouraged to record one or more error codes (see Outcome Tabulations (normative) (§C)) herein.
2 otherwise ·absent·.
Schema Information Set Contribution: Element Declaration
If and only if an element information item is ·valid· with respect to an element declaration as per Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4), then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the element information item mustmay, at processor option, have either:
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[element declaration]
an ·item isomorphic· to the declaration component itself
or
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[nil]
true if clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) above is satisfied, otherwise false
Schema Information Set Contribution: Element Validated by Type
If and only if an element information item is ·valid· with respect to a ·type definition· as per Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4), then in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the item has a property:
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[schema normalized value]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) and Element Default Value (§3.3.5) above have not applied and either the ·type definition· is a simple type definition or its {content type} is a simple type definitionhas {variety} simple, then the ·normalized value· of the item as ·validated·.
2 otherwise ·absent·.
Furthermore, the item has one of the following alternative sets of properties:

Either

PSVI Contributions for element information items
[type definition]
An ·item isomorphic· to the ·type definition· component itself.
[member type definition]
If and only if that type definition is a simple type definition with {variety} union, or a complex type definition whose {content type} ishas {variety} simple and {simple type definition} a simple type definition with {variety} union, then an ·item isomorphic· to that member of the union's {member type definitions}basic member of its transitive membership which actually ·validated· the element item's ·normalized value·.
or
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[type definition type]
simple or complex, depending on the ·type definition·.
[type definition namespace]
The {target namespace} of the ·type definition·.
[type definition anonymous]
true if the {name} of the ·type definition· is ·absent·, otherwise false.
[type definition name]
The {name} of the ·type definition·, if it is not ·absent·. If it is ·absent·, schema processors may, but need not, provide a value unique to the definition.
If the ·type definition· is a simple type definition with {variety} unionor its {content type} is a simple type definition, and that type definition hashas {variety} simple and {simple type definition} a simple type definition with {variety} union, then calling [Definition:]   that member of the {member type definitions}basic member of its transitive membership which actually ·validated· the element item's ·normalized value· the actual member type definition, there are three additional properties:
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[member type definition namespace]
The {target namespace} of the ·actual member type definition·.
[member type definition anonymous]
true if the {name} of the ·actual member type definition· is ·absent·, otherwise false.
[member type definition name]
The {name} of the ·actual member type definition·, if it is not ·absent·. If it is ·absent·, schema processors may, but need not, provide a value unique to the definition.
The first (·item isomorphic·) alternative above is provided for applications such as query processors which need access to the full range of details about an item's ·assessment·, for example the type hierarchy; the second, for lighter-weight processors for whom representing the significant parts of the type hierarchy as information items might be a significant burden.

Also, if the declaration has a {value constraint}, the item has a property:

PSVI Contributions for element information items
[schema default]
The canonical lexical representation of{lexical form} of the declaration's {value constraint} value. 's {value}.
Note that if an element is ·laxly assessed·, then the [type definition] and [member type definition] properties, or their alternatives, are based on the ·ur-type definition··definition of anyType·.
Schema Information Set Contribution: Element Default Value
If and only if the local ·validity·, as defined by Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) above, of an element information item has been assessed, in the ·post-schema-validation infoset· the item has a property:
PSVI Contributions for element information items
[schema specified]
The appropriate case among the following:
1 If the item is ·valid· with respect to an element declaration as per Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) and the {value constraint} is present, but clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) above is not satisfied and the item has no element or character information item [children], then schema. Furthermore, the ·post-schema-validation infoset· has the canonical lexical representation of{lexical form} of the {value constraint} value. 's {value} as the item's [schema normalized value] property.
2 otherwise infoset.

3.3.6 Constraints on Element Declaration Schema Components

All element declarations (see Element Declarations (§3.3)) must satisfy the following constraint.

Schema Component Constraint: Element Declaration Properties Correct
All of the following must be true:
2 If there is a {value constraint}, the canonical lexical representation of its value is ·valid·it is a valid default with respect to the {type definition} as defined in Element Default Valid (Immediate) (§3.3.6).
3 If there is a ·non-absent· {substitution group affiliation}, then {scope}'s {variety} is global.
4 If there is a {substitution group affiliation}, the {type definition} of the element declaration is validly derived from the {type definition} of the {substitution group affiliation}, given the value of the {substitution group exclusions} of the {substitution group affiliation}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if the {type definition} is complex) or as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6) (if the {type definition} is simple).
5 If the {type definition} or {type definition}'s {content type}'s {simple type definition} is or is derivedconstructed from ID, then there is no {value constraint}.
Note: The use of ID as a type definition for elements goes beyond XML, and should be avoided if backwards compatibility is desired.
6 There are no circular substitution groups. That is, it is not possible to return to an element declaration by repeatedly following the {substitution group affiliation} property.

The following constraints define relations appealed to elsewhere in this specification.

Schema Component Constraint: Element Default Valid (Immediate)
For a stringValue Constraint↑ to be a valid default with respect to a type definition the appropriate case among the following must be true:
1 If the type definition is a simple type definitionor a complex type definition whose {content type} has {variety} simple type definition, then the string is ·valid· with respect to that definition as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4). the Value Constraint is a valid default with respect to the {content type}'s {simple type definition} as defined by Simple Default Valid (§3.2.6).
2 If the type definition is a complex type definition whose {content type}'s {variety} is not simple type definition, then all of the following are true:
2.1 its {content type} is a simple type definition or has {variety} mixed.
2.2
The appropriate case among the following is true:
2.2.1 If the {content type} is a simple type definition, then the string is ·valid· with respect to that simple type definition as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4).
2.2.2 If the {content type} is mixed, then the {content type}'s particle is ·emptiable· as defined by Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6).
Schema Component Constraint: Substitution Group OK (Transitive)
For an element declaration (call it D) to be validly substitutable for another element declaration (call it C) subject to a blocking constraint (a subset of {substitution, extension, restriction}, the value of a {disallowed substitutions}) one of the following must be true:
1 D and C are the same element declaration.
2 All of the following are true:
2.1 The blocking constraint does not contain substitution.
2.2 There is a chain of {substitution group affiliation}s from D to C, that is, either D's {substitution group affiliation} is C, or D's {substitution group affiliation}'s {substitution group affiliation} is C, or . . .
2.3 The set of all {derivation method}s involved in the derivation of D's {type definition} from C's {type definition} does not intersect with the union of the blocking constraint, C's {prohibited substitutions} (if C is complex, otherwise the empty set) and the {prohibited substitutions} (respectively the empty set) of any intermediate {type definition}s in the derivation of D's {type definition} from C's {type definition}.
Schema Component Constraint: Substitution Group
[Definition:]  Every element declaration (call this HEAD) in the {element declarations} of a schema defines a substitution group, a subset of those {element declarations}, as follows:

Define P, the potential substitution group for HEAD, as follows:

1 The element declaration itself is in P;
2 P is closed with respect to {substitution group affiliation}, that is, if any element declaration in the {element declarations} has a {substitution group affiliation} in P, then that element is also in P itself.
HEAD's actual ·substitution group· is then the set consisting of each member of P such that all of the following are true:
1 Its {abstract} is false.
2 It is validly substitutable for HEAD subject to HEAD's {disallowed substitutions} as the blocking constraint, as defined in Substitution Group OK (Transitive) (§3.3.6).

previous sub-section next sub-section3.4 Complex Type Definitions

Complex Type Definitions provide for:

Issue (RQ-36i): Issue 2857 (RQ-7 wildcards), Issue 2860 (RQ-36 local references), Issue 2544 (RQ-146 element declarations consistent)

Although extremely useful, wildcards have proved to interact in unfortunate ways with the Unique Particle Attribution and Element Declarations Consistent constraints, and this has limited their utility, particularly for use in allowing for extension and anticipating subsequent versions. The interpretation of wildcards will be changed to address these problems, without compromising backward compatibility.

Example
<xs:complexType name="PurchaseOrderType">
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="shipTo" type="USAddress"/>
   <xs:element name="billTo" type="USAddress"/>
   <xs:element ref="comment" minOccurs="0"/>
   <xs:element name="items"  type="Items"/>
  </xs:sequence>
  <xs:attribute name="orderDate" type="xs:date"/>
 </xs:complexType>
The XML representation of a complex type definition.

3.4.1 The Complex Type Definition Schema Component

A complex type definition schema component has the following properties:

Issue (RQ-131i): Issue 2841 (RQ-131 ordering of annotations), Issue 2840 (RQ-130 lost annotations), Issue 2851 (RQ-19 annotations in PSVI)

Version 1.0 was inconsistent in providing for multiple sources of annotation, particularly where components corresponded to multiple nested elements in schema documents (e.g. Complex Type Definitions vis a vis xs:complexType, xs:complexContent and xs:restriction). This will change so that all components can have multiple annotations, and annotations will be handled consistently across all kinds of components.

Also applies anywhere else {annotations} plural appears — everywhere, in fact.

Resolution:

  1. All components have an {annotations} property;
  2. It contains a sequence of annotations;
  3. Namely all annotations "scoped" by this component, but not "scoped" by any other component "further down".
  4. The order of annotations within {annotations} is implementation-determined.

Note that when point 3 above mentions "annotations 'scoped' by . . ." this means <annotation> elements and out-of-band attributes.

[Agendum 4.1 SCD-related requirements (W3C-member-only link)]

Complex type definitions are identified by their {name} and {target namespace}. Except for anonymous complex type definitions (those with no {name}), since type definitions (i.e. both simple and complex type definitions taken together) must be uniquely identified within an ·XML Schema·, no complex type definition can have the same name as another simple or complex type definition. Complex type {name}s and {target namespace}s are provided for reference from instances (see xsi:type (§2.6.1)), and for use in the XML representation of schema components (specifically in <element>). See References to schema components across namespaces (<import>) (§4.2.3) for the use of component identifiers when importing one schema into another.

Note: The {name} of a complex type is not ipso facto the [(local) name] of the element information items ·validated· by that definition. The connection between a name and a type definition is described in Element Declarations (§3.3).

As described in Type Definition Hierarchy (§2.2.1.1), each complex type is derived from a {base type definition} which is itself either a Simple Type Definition (§2.2.1.2) or a Complex Type Definition (§2.2.1.3). {derivation method} specifies the means of derivation as either extension or restriction (see Type Definition Hierarchy (§2.2.1.1)).

A complex type with an empty specification for {final} can be used as a {base type definition} for other types derived by either of extension or restriction; the explicit values extension, and restriction prevent further derivations by extension and restriction respectively. If all values are specified, then [Definition:]  the complex type is said to be final, because no further derivations are possible. Finality is not inherited, that is, a type definition derived by restriction from a type definition which is final for extension is not itself, in the absence of any explicit final attribute of its own, final for anything.

The {context} property is only relevant for anonymous type definitions, for which its value is the component in which this type definition appears as the value of a property, e.g. {type definition}.

Complex types for which {abstract} is true must not be used as the {type definition} for the ·validation· of element information items. It follows that they must not be referenced from an xsi:type (§2.6.1) attribute in an instance document. Abstract complex types can be used as {base type definition}s, or even as the {type definition}s of element declarations, provided in every case a concrete derived type definition is used for ·validation·, either via xsi:type (§2.6.1) or the operation of a substitution group.

{attribute uses} are a set of attribute uses. See Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4) and Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4) for details of attribute ·validation·.

{attribute wildcard}s provide a more flexible specification for ·validation· of attributes not explicitly included in {attribute uses}. Informally, the specific values of {attribute wildcard} are interpreted as follows:

  • any: [attributes] can include attributes with any qualified or unqualified name.
  • a set whose members are either namespace names or ·absent·: [attributes] can include any attribute(s) from the specified namespace(s). If ·absent· is included in the set, then any unqualified attributes are (also) allowed.
  • 'not' and a namespace name: [attributes] cannot include attributes from the specified namespace.
  • 'not' and ·absent·: [attributes] cannot include unqualified attributes.

See Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4) and Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4) for formal details of attribute wildcard ·validation·.

{content type} determines the ·validation· of [children] of element information items. Informally:

{prohibited substitutions} determine whether an element declaration appearing in a · content model· is prevented from additionally ·validating· element items with an xsi:type (§2.6.1) attribute that identifies a complex type definition derived by extension or restriction from this definition, or element items in a substitution group whose type definition is similarly derived: If {prohibited substitutions} is empty, then all such substitutions are allowed, otherwise, the derivation method(s) it names are disallowed.

See Annotations (§3.13) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.

3.4.2 XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions

The XML representation for a complex type definition schema component is a <complexType> element information item.

The XML representation for complex type definitions with a simple type definition {content type}with {variety} simple is significantly different from that of those with other {content type}s, and this is reflected in the presentation below, which displays first the elements involved in the first case, then those for the second. The property mapping is shown once for each case.

XML Representation Summary: complexType Element Information Item

<complexType
  abstract = boolean : false
  block = (#all | List of (extension | restriction))
  final = (#all | List of (extension | restriction))
  id = ID
  mixed = boolean : false
  name = NCName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (simpleContent | complexContent | ((group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))))
</complexType>

Whichever alternative for the content of <complexType> is chosen, the following property mappings apply:
Complex Type Definition Schema Component
Property
Representation
 
The ·actual value· of the name [attribute] if present, otherwise ·absent·.
 
The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the <schema> ancestor element information item if present, otherwise ·absent·.
 
The ·actual value· of the abstract [attribute], if present, otherwise false.
 
A set corresponding to the ·actual value· of the block [attribute], if present, otherwise on the ·actual value· of the blockDefault [attribute] of the ancestor <schema> element information item, if present, otherwise on the empty string. Call this the EBV (for effective block value). Then the value of this property is the appropriate case among the following:
1 If the EBV is the empty string, then the empty set;
2 If the EBV is #all, then {extension, restriction};
3 otherwise a set with members drawn from the set above, each being present or absent depending on whether the ·actual value· (which is a list) contains an equivalently named item.
Note: Although the blockDefault [attribute] of <schema> may include values other than restriction orextension, those values are ignored in the determination of {prohibited substitutions} for complex type definitions (they are used elsewhere).
 
As for {prohibited substitutions} above, but using the final and finalDefault [attributes] in place of the block and blockDefault [attributes].
 
If the name [attribute] is present, then ·absent·, otherwise (the parent element information item will be <element>), the Element Declaration corresponding to that parent information item.
 
The annotations corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, in the <simpleContent> and <complexContent> [children], if present, and in their <restriction> and <extension> [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
When the <simpleContent> alternative is chosen, the following elements are relevant, and the remaining property mappings are as below. Note that either <restriction> or <extension> must be chosen as the content of <simpleContent>.

<simpleContent
  id = ID
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (restriction | extension))
</simpleContent>

<restriction
  base = QName
  id = ID
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (simpleType?, (minExclusive | minInclusive | maxExclusive | maxInclusive | totalDigits | fractionDigits | maxScale | minScale | length | minLength | maxLength | enumeration | whiteSpace | pattern)*)?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))
</restriction>

<extension
  base = QName
  id = ID
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))
</extension>

<attributeGroup
  id = ID
  ref = QName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?)
</attributeGroup>

<anyAttribute
  id = ID
  namespace = ((##any | ##other) | List of (anyURI | (##targetNamespace | ##local)) )  : ##any
  processContents = (lax | skip | strict) : strict
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?)
</anyAttribute>

Property
Representation
 
The type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute]
 
If the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then restriction, otherwise (the <extension> alternative is chosen) extension.
 
A union of sets of attribute uses as follows
1 The set of attribute uses corresponding to the <attribute> [children], if any.
2 The {attribute uses} of the attribute groups ·resolved· to by the ·actual value·s of the ref [attribute] of the <attributeGroup> [children], if any.
3 if the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is a complex type definition, the {attribute uses} of that type definition, unless the <restriction> alternative is chosen, in which case some members of that type definition's {attribute uses} must not be included, namely those whose {attribute declaration}'s {name} and {target namespace} are the same as one of the following:
3.1 the {name} and {target namespace} of the {attribute declaration} of an attribute use in the set per clause 1 or clause 2 above;
3.2 what would have been the {name} and {target namespace} of the {attribute declaration} of an attribute use in the set per clause 1 above but for the ·actual value· of the use [attribute] of the relevant <attribute> among the [children] of <restriction> being prohibited.
 
1 [Definition:]  Let the local wildcard be defined as the appropriate case among the following:
1.1 If there is an <anyAttribute> present, then a wildcard based on the ·actual value·s of the namespace and processContents [attributes] and the <annotation> [children], exactly as for the wildcard corresponding to an <any> element as set out in XML Representation of Wildcard Schema Components (§3.10.2);
1.2 otherwise ·absent·.
2 [Definition:]  Let the complete wildcard be defined as the appropriate case among the following:
2.1 If there are no <attributeGroup> [children] corresponding to attribute groups with ·non-absent· {attribute wildcard}s, then the ·local wildcard·.
2.2 If there are one or more <attributeGroup> [children] corresponding to attribute groups with ·non-absent· {attribute wildcard}s, then the appropriate case among the following:
2.2.1 If there is an <anyAttribute> present, then a wildcard whose {process contents} and {annotations} are those of the ·local wildcard·, and whose {namespace constraint} is the intensional intersection of the {namespace constraint} of the ·local wildcard· and of the {namespace constraint}s of all the ·non-absent· {attribute wildcard}s of the attribute groups corresponding to the <attributeGroup> [children], as defined in Attribute Wildcard Intersection (§3.10.6).
2.2.2 If there is no <anyAttribute> present, then a wildcard whose properties are as follows:
The {process contents} of the first ·non-absent· {attribute wildcard} of an attribute group among the attribute groups corresponding to the <attributeGroup> [children].
The intensional intersection of the {namespace constraint}s of all the ·non-absent· {attribute wildcard}s of the attribute groups corresponding to the <attributeGroup> [children], as defined in Attribute Wildcard Intersection (§3.10.6).
3 The value is then determined by the appropriate case among the following:
3.1 If the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then the ·complete wildcard·;
3.2 If the <extension> alternative is chosen, then
3.2.1 [Definition:]  let the base wildcard be defined as the appropriate case among the following:
3.2.1.1 If the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is a complex type definition with an {attribute wildcard}, then that {attribute wildcard}.
3.2.1.2 otherwise ·absent·.
3.2.2 The value is then determined by the appropriate case among the following:
3.2.2.1 If the ·base wildcard· is ·non-absent· , then the appropriate case among the following:
3.2.2.1.1 If the ·complete wildcard· is ·absent·, then the ·base wildcard·.
3.2.2.1.2 otherwise a wildcard whose {process contents} and {annotations} are those of the ·complete wildcard·, and whose {namespace constraint} is the intensional union of the {namespace constraint} of the ·complete wildcard· and of the ·base wildcard·, as defined in Attribute Wildcard Union (§3.10.6).
3.2.2.2 otherwise (the ·base wildcard· is ·absent·) the ·complete wildcard·
 
A Content Type as follows:
Property
Value
simple
the appropriate case among the following:
1 If the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is a complex type definition whose own {content type} is a simple type definitionhas {variety} simple and the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then starting from either
1.1 the simple type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> among the [children] of <restriction> if there is one;
1.2 otherwise (<restriction> has no <simpleType> among its [children]), the simple type definition which is the {simple type definition} of the {content type} of the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute]
a simple type definition which restricts the simple type definition identified in clause 1.1 or clause 1.2 with a set of facet components corresponding to the appropriate element information items among the <restriction>'s [children] (i.e. those which specify facets, if any), as defined in Simple Type Restriction (Facets) (§3.14.6);
2 If the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is a complex type definition whose own {content type} ishas {variety} mixed and a particle{particle} a Particle which is ·emptiable·, as defined in Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6) and the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then starting from the simple type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> among the [children] of <restriction> (which must be present) a simple type definition which restricts that simple type definition with a set of facet components corresponding to the appropriate element information items among the <restriction>'s [children] (i.e. those which specify facets, if any), as defined in Simple Type Restriction (Facets) (§3.14.6);
3 If the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is a complex type definition (whose own {content type} must be a simple type definitionhave {variety} simple, see below) and the <extension> alternative is chosen, then the {simple type definition} of the {content type} of that complex type definition;
4 otherwise (the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is a simple type definition and the <extension> alternative is chosen), then that simple type definition.
When the <complexContent> alternative is chosen, the following elements are relevant (as are the <attributeGroup> and <anyAttribute> elements, not repeated here), and the additional property mappings are as below. Note that either <restriction> or <extension> must be chosen as the content of <complexContent>, but their content models are different in this case from the case above when they occur as children of <simpleContent>.
The property mappings below are also used in the case where the third alternative (neither <simpleContent> nor <complexContent>) is chosen. This case is understood as shorthand for complex content restricting the ·ur-type definition·, and the details of the mappings must be modified as necessary.

<complexContent
  id = ID
  mixed = boolean
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (restriction | extension))
</complexContent>

<restriction
  base = QName
  id = ID
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))
</restriction>

<extension
  base = QName
  id = ID
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, ((group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?)))
</extension>

Property
Representation
 
The type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute]
 
If the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then restriction, otherwise (the <extension> alternative is chosen) extension.
 
A union of sets of attribute uses as follows:
1 The set of attribute uses corresponding to the <attribute> [children], if any.
2 The {attribute uses} of the attribute groups ·resolved· to by the ·actual value·s of the ref [attribute] of the <attributeGroup> [children], if any.
3 The {attribute uses} of the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute], unless the <restriction> alternative is chosen, in which case some members of that type definition's {attribute uses} must not be included, namely those whose {attribute declaration}'s {name} and {target namespace} are the same as one of the following:
3.1 The {name} and {target namespace} of the {attribute declaration} of an attribute use in the set per clause 1 or clause 2 above;
3.2 what would have been the {name} and {target namespace} of the {attribute declaration} of an attribute use in the set per clause 1 above but for the ·actual value· of the use [attribute] of the relevant <attribute> among the [children] of <restriction> being prohibited.
 
As above for the <simpleContent> alternative.
 
1 [Definition:]  Let the effective mixed be the appropriate case among the following:
1.1 If the mixed [attribute] is present on <complexContent>, then its ·actual value·;
1.2 If the mixed [attribute] is present on <complexType>, then its ·actual value·;
1.3 otherwise false.
2 [Definition:]  Let the effective content be the appropriate case among the following:
2.1 If one of the following is true
2.1.1 There is no <group>, <all>, <choice> or <sequence> among the [children];
2.1.2 There is an <all> or <sequence> among the [children] with no [children] of its own excluding <annotation>;
2.1.3 There is a <choice> among the [children] with no [children] of its own excluding <annotation> whose minOccurs [attribute] has the ·actual value· 0;
, then the appropriate case among the following:
2.1.4 If the ·effective mixed· is true, then A particle whose properties are as follows:
A model group whose {compositor} is sequence and whose {particles} is empty.
.
2.1.5 otherwise empty
2.2 otherwise the particle corresponding to the <all>, <choice>, <group> or <sequence> among the [children].
3 Then the value of the property is the appropriate case among the following:
3.1 If the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then the appropriate case among the following:
3.1.1 If the ·effective content· is empty , then a Content Type as follows:
3.1.2 otherwise a pair consisting ofa Content Type as follows:
3.1.2.1 mixed if the ·effective mixed· is true, otherwise elementOnly
Property
Value
mixed if the ·effective mixed· is true, otherwise elementOnly
3.2 If the <extension> alternative is chosen, then the appropriate case among the following:
3.2.1 If the ·effective content· is empty, then the {content type} of the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute]
3.2.2 If the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] has a {content type} ofwith {variety} empty, then a pairContent Type as per clause 3.1.2 above;
3.2.3 otherwise a pair ofContent Type as follows:
Property
Value
mixed if the ·effective mixed· is true, otherwise elementOnly
a Particle whose properties are as follows:
A model group whose {compositor} is sequence and whose {particles} are the particle of the {content type} of the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] followed by the ·effective content·.
Note: Aside from the simple coherence requirements enforced above, constraining type definitions identified as restrictions to actually be restrictions, that is, to ·validate· a subset of the items which are ·validated· by their base type definition, is enforced in Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components (§3.4.6).
Note: The only substantive function of the value prohibited for the use attribute of an <attribute> is in establishing the correspondence between a complex type defined by restriction and its XML representation. It serves to prevent inheritance of an identically named attribute use from the {base type definition}. Such an <attribute> does not correspond to any component, and hence there is no interaction with either explicit or inherited wildcards in the operation of Complex Type Definition Validation Rules (§3.4.4) or Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components (§3.4.6).

Careful consideration of the above concrete syntax reveals that a type definition need consist of no more than a name, i.e. that <complexType name="anyThing"/> is allowed.

Example
<xs:complexType name="length1">
 <xs:simpleContent>
  <xs:extension base="xs:nonNegativeInteger">
   <xs:attribute name="unit" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
  </xs:extension>
 </xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>

<xs:element name="width" type="length1"/>

  <width unit="cm">25</width>

<xs:complexType name="length2">
 <xs:complexContent>
  <xs:restriction base="
     xs:anyType
     xs:rootType
     ">
   <xs:sequence>
    <xs:element name="size" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"/>
    <xs:element name="unit" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
   </xs:sequence>
  </xs:restriction>
 </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>

<xs:element name="depth" type="length2"/>

  <depth>
   <size>25</size><unit>cm</unit>
  </depth>

<xs:complexType name="length3">
 <xs:sequence>
  <xs:element name="size" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"/>
  <xs:element name="unit" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
 </xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
    
Three approaches to defining a type for length: one with character data content constrained by reference to a built-in datatype, and one attribute, the other two using two elements. length3 is the abbreviated alternative to length2: they correspond to identical type definition components.
Example
<xs:complexType name="personName">
 <xs:sequence>
  <xs:element name="title" minOccurs="0"/>
  <xs:element name="forename" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
  <xs:element name="surname"/>
 </xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>

<xs:complexType name="extendedName">
 <xs:complexContent>
  <xs:extension base="personName">
   <xs:sequence>
    <xs:element name="generation" minOccurs="0"/>
   </xs:sequence>
  </xs:extension>
 </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>

<xs:element name="addressee" type="extendedName"/>

  <addressee>
   <forename>Albert</forename>
   <forename>Arnold</forename>
   <surname>Gore</surname>
   <generation>Jr</generation>
  </addressee>
A type definition for personal names, and a definition derived by extension which adds a single element; an element declaration referencing the derived definition, and a ·valid· instance thereof.
Example
<xs:complexType name="simpleName">
 <xs:complexContent>
  <xs:restriction base="personName">
   <xs:sequence>
    <xs:element name="forename" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
    <xs:element name="surname"/>
   </xs:sequence>
  </xs:restriction>
 </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>

<xs:element name="who" type="simpleName"/>

   <who>
    <forename>Bill</forename>
    <surname>Clinton</surname>
   </who>
A simplified type definition derived from the base type from the previous example by restriction, eliminating one optional daughter and fixing another to occur exactly once; an element declared by reference to it, and a ·valid· instance thereof.
Example
<xs:complexType name="paraType" mixed="true">
 <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
  <xs:element ref="emph"/>
  <xs:element ref="strong"/>
 </xs:choice>
 <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:numberdecimal"/>
</xs:complexType>
A further illustration of the abbreviated form, with the mixed attribute appearing on complexType itself.

3.4.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Complex Type Definitions

Schema Representation Constraint: Complex Type Definition Representation OK
In addition to the conditions imposed on <complexType> element information items by the schema for schemas, all of the following also apply:
1 If the <complexContent> alternative is chosen, the type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] must be a complex type definition;
2 If the <simpleContent> alternative is chosen, all of the following must be true:
2.1 The type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the base [attribute] is one of the following:
2.1.1 a complex type definition whose {content type} is a simple type definitionhas {variety} simple;
2.1.2 only if the <restriction> alternative is also chosen, a complex type definition whose {content type} ishas {variety} mixed and a particle{particle} a Particle which is ·emptiable·, as defined in Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6);
2.1.3 only if the <extension> alternative is also chosen, a simple type definition.
2.2 If clause 2.1.2 above is satisfied, then there is a <simpleType> among the [children] of <restriction>.
Note: Although not explicitly ruled out either here or in Schema for SchemasSchema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A), specifying <xs:complexType . . .mixed='true' when the <simpleContent> alternative is chosen has no effect on the corresponding component, and should be avoided. This may be ruled out in a subsequent version of this specification.
3 The corresponding complex type definition component must satisfy the conditions set out in Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components (§3.4.6);
4 If clause 2.2.1 or clause 2.2.2 in the correspondence specification above for {attribute wildcard} is satisfied, the intensional intersection must be expressible, as defined in Attribute Wildcard Intersection (§3.10.6).

3.4.4 Complex Type Definition Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Complex Type)
For an element information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to a complex type definition all of the following must be true:
1 {abstract} is false.
2 If clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) did not apply, then the appropriate case among the following is true:
2.1 If the {content type} ishas {variety} empty, then the element information item has no character or element information item [children].
2.2 If the {content type} is a simple type definitionhas {variety} simple, then the element information item has no element information item [children], and the ·normalized value· of the element information item is ·valid· with respect to that simple type definitionthe {content type}'s {simple type definition} as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4).
2.3 If the {content type} ishas {variety} element-only, then the element information item has no character information item [children] other than those whose [character code] is defined as a white space in [XML 1.1].
Note: It is implementation-defined whether a schema processor supports the definition of white space from [XML 1.1], or that from [XML 1.0], or both.
2.4 If the {content type} ishas {variety} element-only or mixed, then the sequence of the element information item's element information item [children], if any, taken in order, is ·valid· with respect to the {content type}'s {particle}, as defined in Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle) (§3.9.4).
3 For each attribute information item in the element information item's [attributes] excepting those whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is one of type, nil, schemaLocation or noNamespaceSchemaLocation, the appropriate case among the following is true:
3.1 If there is among the {attribute uses} an attribute use with an {attribute declaration} whose {name} matches the attribute information item's [local name] and whose {target namespace} is identical to the attribute information item's [namespace name] (where an ·absent· {target namespace} is taken to be identical to a [namespace name] with no value), then the attribute information is ·valid· with respect to that attribute use as per Attribute Locally Valid (Use) (§3.5.4). In this case the {attribute declaration} of that attribute use is the ·context-determined declaration· for the attribute information item with respect to Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute) (§3.2.4) and Assessment Outcome (Attribute) (§3.2.5).
3.2 otherwise all of the following are true:
3.2.1 There is an {attribute wildcard}.
3.2.2 The attribute information item is ·valid· with respect to it as defined in Item Valid (Wildcard) (§3.10.4).
4 The {attribute declaration} of each attribute use in the {attribute uses} whose {required} is true matches one of the attribute information items in the element information item's [attributes] as per clause 3.1 above.
5 Let [Definition:]  the wild IDs be the set of all attribute information items to which clause 3.2 applied and whose ·validation· resulted in a ·context-determined declaration· of mustFind or no ·context-determined declaration· at all, and whose [local name] and [namespace name] resolve (as defined by QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4)) to an attribute declaration whose {type definition} is or is derivedconstructed from ID. Then all of the following are true:
5.1 There is no more than one item in ·wild IDs·.
5.2 If ·wild IDs· is non-empty, there are no attribute uses among the {attribute uses} whose {attribute declaration}'s {type definition} is or is derivedconstructed from ID.
Note: This clause serves to ensure that even via attribute wildcards no element has more than one attribute of type ID, and that even when an element legitimately lacks a declared attribute of type ID, a wildcard-validated attribute must not supply it. That is, if an element has a type whose attribute declarations include one of type ID, it either has that attribute or no attribute of type ID.
Note: When an {attribute wildcard} is present, this does not introduce any ambiguity with respect to how attribute information items for which an attribute use is present amongst the {attribute uses} whose name and target namespace match are ·assessed·. In such cases the attribute use always takes precedence, and the ·assessment· of such items stands or falls entirely on the basis of the attribute use and its {attribute declaration}. This follows from the details of clause 3.

3.4.5 Complex Type Definition Information Set Contributions

Schema Information Set Contribution: Attribute Default Value
For each attribute use in the {attribute uses} whose {required} is false and whose {value constraint} is not ·absent· but whose {attribute declaration} does not match one of the attribute information items in the element information item's [attributes] as per clause 3.1 of Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4) above, the ·post-schema-validation infoset· has an attribute information item whose properties are as below added to the [attributes] of the element information item.
Issue (RQ-22i):Issue 2852 (RQ-22 add normalized default)

Constructed default attribute information items in the PSVI did not have a [normalized value] property, only a [schema normalized value], making them incompatible with ordinary attribute infoitems. On balance, it seems sensible to correct this.

Resolution:

Add a [normalized value] property to the constructed attribute infoitem which arises when a default value is applied.

The added items must also either have [type definition] (and [member type definition] if appropriate) properties, or their lighter-weight alternatives, as specified in Attribute Validated by Type (§3.2.5).

3.4.6 Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components

All complex type definitions (see Complex Type Definitions (§3.4)) must satisfy the following constraints.

Schema Component Constraint: Complex Type Definition Properties Correct
All of the following must be true:
2 If the {base type definition} is a simple type definition, the {derivation method} is extension.
3 There are no circular definitions, except for that of rootType. That is, it is possible to reach the ·ur-type definition·definition of rootType by repeatedly following the {base type definition}.
4 No two distinct attribute declarations in the {attribute uses} have identical {name}s and {target namespace}s.
5 No two distinct attribute declarations in the {attribute uses} have {type definition}s which are or are derivedconstructed from ID.
Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Extension)
If the {derivation method} is extension, then the appropriate case among the following must be true:
1 If the {base type definition} is a complex type definition, then all of the following are true:
1.1 The {final} of the {base type definition} does not contain extension.
1.2 Its {attribute uses} is a subset of the {attribute uses} of the complex type definition itself. That is, for every attribute use in the {attribute uses} of the {base type definition}, there is an attribute use in the {attribute uses} of the complex type definition itself whose {attribute declaration} has the same {name}, {target namespace} and {type definition} as its attribute declaration.
1.3 If it has an {attribute wildcard}, then the complex type definition also has one, and the base type definition's {attribute wildcard}'s {namespace constraint} is a subset of the complex type definition's {attribute wildcard}'s {namespace constraint}, as defined by Wildcard Subset (§3.10.6).
1.4 One of the following is true:
1.4.1 The {content type} of the {base type definition} and the {content type} of the complex type definition itself areboth have {variety} simple and {simple type definition} the same simple type definition.
1.4.2 The {content type} of both the {base type definition} and the complex type definition itself ishave {variety} empty.
1.4.3 All of the following are true:
1.4.3.1 The {content type} of the complex type definition itself specifies a particlehas {variety} element-only or mixed.
1.4.3.2 One of the following is true:
1.4.3.2.1 The {content type} of the {base type definition} ishas {variety} empty.
1.4.3.2.2 All of the following are true:
1.4.3.2.2.1 Both {content type}s arehave {variety} mixed or both arehave {variety} element-only.
1.4.3.2.2.2 The particle{particle} of the {content type} of the complex type definition is a ·valid extension· of the {base type definition}'s particle{content type}'s {particle}, as defined in Particle Valid (Extension) (§3.9.6).
1.5 It is in principle possible to derive the complex type definition in two steps, the first an extension and the second a restriction (possibly vacuous), from that type definition among its ancestors whose {base type definition} is the ·ur-type definition·.
Note: This requirement ensures that nothing removed by a restriction is subsequently added back by an extension. It is trivial to check if the extension in question is the only extension in its derivation, or if there are no restrictions bar the first from the ·ur-type definition·.

Constructing the intermediate type definition to check this constraint is straightforward: simply re-order the derivation to put all the extension steps first, then collapse them into a single extension. If the resulting definition can be the basis for a valid restriction to the desired definition, the constraint is satisfied.

2 If the {base type definition} is a simple type definition, then all of the following are true:
2.1 The {content type}'s {variety} is simple and its {simple type definition} is the same simple type definition.
2.2 The {final} of the {base type definition} does not contain extension.
[Definition:]  If this constraint Derivation Valid (Extension) (§3.4.6) holds of a complex type definition, it is a valid extension of its {base type definition}.

[Definition:]   A complex type T is a valid extension of its {base type definition} if and only if T has a {derivation method} of extension and satisfies the constraint Derivation Valid (Extension) (§3.4.6).

Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex)
If the {derivation method} is restriction all of the following must be true:
1 The {base type definition} is a complex type definition whose {final} does not contain restriction.
2
For each attribute use (call this R) in the {attribute uses} the appropriate case among the following is true:
2.1 If there is an attribute use in the {attribute uses} of the {base type definition} (call this B) whose {attribute declaration} has the same {name} and {target namespace}, then all of the following are true:
2.1.1 one of the following is true
2.1.1.1 B's {required} is false.
2.1.1.2 R's {required} is true.
2.1.2 R's {attribute declaration}'s {type definition} is validly derived from B's {type definition} given the empty set as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6).
2.1.3 [Definition:]  Let the effective value constraint of an attribute use be its {value constraint}, if present, otherwise its {attribute declaration}'s {value constraint} . Then one of the following is true
2.1.3.1 B's ·effective value constraint· is ·absent· or default.
2.1.3.2 R's ·effective value constraint· is fixed with the same string as B's.
2.2 otherwise the {base type definition} has an {attribute wildcard} and the {target namespace} of R's {attribute declaration} is ·valid· with respect to that wildcard, as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4).
3
For each attribute use in the {attribute uses} of the {base type definition} whose {required} is true, there is an attribute use with an {attribute declaration} with the same {name} and {target namespace} as its {attribute declaration} in the {attribute uses} of the complex type definition itself whose {required} is true.
4
If there is an {attribute wildcard}, all of the following are true:
4.1 The {base type definition} also has one.
4.3 Unless the {base type definition} is the ·ur-type definition·, the complex type definition's {attribute wildcard}'s {process contents} is identical to or stronger than the {base type definition}'s {attribute wildcard}'s {process contents}, where strict is stronger than lax is stronger than skip.
5 One of the following is true:
5.2 All of the following are true:
5.2.1 The {content type} of the complex type definition is a simple type definition
5.2.2 One of the following is true:
5.2.2.1 The {content type} of the {base type definition} is a simple type definition from which the {content type} is validly derived given the empty set as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6).
5.2.2.2 The {base type definition} is mixed and has a particle which is ·emptiable· as defined in Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6).
5.3 All of the following are true:
5.3.1 The {content type} of the complex type itself is empty
5.3.2 One of the following is true:
5.3.2.1 The {content type} of the {base type definition} is also empty.
5.3.2.2 The {content type} of the {base type definition} is elementOnly or mixed and has a particle which is ·emptiable· as defined in Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6).
5.4 All of the following are true:
5.4.1 One of the following is true:
5.4.1.1 The {content type} of the complex type definition itself is element-only
5.4.1.2 The {content type} of the complex type definition itself and of the {base type definition} is mixed.
5.4.2 The particle of the complex type definition itself is a ·valid restriction· of the particle of the {content type} of the {base type definition} as defined in Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6).
Note: Attempts to derive complex type definitions whose {content type} is element-only by restricting a {base type definition} whose {content type} is empty are not ruled out by this clause. However if the complex type definition itself has a non-pointless particle it will fail to satisfy Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6). On the other hand some type definitions with pointless element-only content, for example an empty <sequence>, will satisfy Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6) with respect to an empty {base type definition}, and so be valid restrictions.
[Definition:]   If this constraint Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex) (§3.4.6) holds of a complex type definition, it is a valid restriction of its {base type definition} .
Note: In the definition of restriction in version 1.0 of this specification, it says

"Members of a type, A, whose definition is a restriction of the definition of another type, B, are always members of type B as well."

However no definition of membership in a type was provided, and this statement accordingly lacked force. We can now restate the intended sense of 'restriction' as follows:

A type definition R is a valid ·restriction· of another type definition B if and only if:

  1. All element information items which are ·abstractly valid· against R are ·abstractly valid· against B.
  2. When type definitions are assigned to children or attributes of an element information item in the PSVI by both R and B, those assigned by R are identical to or derived by one or more restriction or subsetting steps from the corresponding ones assigned by B.
  3. When element declarations are assigned to children or attributes of an element information item in the PSVI by both R and B, the corresponding ones assigned by R appeal to at least the same identity constraints, value constraints and disallowed substitutions as those assigned by B, and may appeal to stronger ones.
  4. Either B is the base type definition of R, or else the base type definition of R is a restriction of B.
Note: It will be noted that valid restriction involves both a subset relation on the set of elements valid against R and those valid against B, and an derivation relation, explicit in the type hierarchy, between the types assigned to attributes and child elements by R and those assigned to the same attributes and children by B.

[Definition:]  An attribute or element information item I is abstractly valid with respect to a simple or complex type definition D if and only if schema-validity assessment of I with respect to D (as defined by Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (§3.3.4) or Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute) (§3.2.4)) either results in a [validity] property of valid, or would result in [validity] of valid if constraints on the abstractness of type definitions and element declarations were ignored.

In practice, it is difficult to enforce the definition above directly as a Constraint on Components, owing to a number of corner cases which are difficult to detect or describe concisely. The following constraint is the operationally normative statement.

Schema Component Constraint: Complex type definition actually restricts
[Definition:]  A complex type definition R (for "restriction") actually restricts another type definition B (for "base") if and only if all of the following are true:
1 Every element information item which is ·locally valid· with respect to R is also ·locally valid· with respect to B.
2 If R and B have elementOnly or mixed as the {variety} of their {content type}s, then for all element information items E which are ·locally valid· with respect to R, for all children C of E, one of the following is true
2.1 Test[E,PR] is not defined for C.
2.2 all of the following are true:
2.2.1 Test[E,PB] and Test[E,PR] are both defined for C
2.2.2 Test[E,PB](C) subsumes Test[E,PR](C).
where PR is R's {content type}'s {particle} and PB is B's {content type}'s {particle}.

[Definition:]  An element information item is locally valid with respect to a complex type definition if and only if it satisfies all but the last clause of Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4) with respect to that definition.

When the child sequence of an element information item E is ·locally valid· against a type definition whose {content type}'s {particle} is P there is a (partial) functional mapping from the element information items in the child sequence to tests, where tests are either Element Declarations, ·the ur-type· or empty, arising as follows:

Element Declarations
Either explicitly present, or successfully located as a result of a strict or lax Wildcard.
An undischarged lax Wildcard.
empty
a skip Wildcard.
(failure to map)
An undischarged strict Wildcard.
[Definition:]  Call this mapping Test[E,P].

[Definition:]  A test G (for general) subsumes another test S (for specific) if and only if one of the following is true

1 G is empty.
2 G is ·the ur-type· and S is not empty.
3 G and S are both Element Declarations and all of the following are true:
3.1 Either G has {nillable} true or S has {nillable} false.
3.2 Either G has no {value constraint}, or it is not fixed, or S has a fixed {value constraint} with the same value.
3.3 S's {identity-constraint definitions} are a superset of G's.
3.4 S disallows a superset of the substitutions that G does.
3.5 S's {type definition} is validly derived given {extension, list, union} from G's {type definition} as defined by Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) or Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6), as appropriate.
Note: Implementing 'actually restricts' (§H) provides guidance to implementors on how to implement this constraint.
Note: To restrict a complex type definition with a simple base type definition to empty, use a simple type definition with a fixed value of the empty string: this preserves the type information.

The following constraint defines a relation appealed to elsewhere in this specification.

Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Complex)
For a complex type definition (call it D, for derived) to be validly derived from a type definition (call this B, for base) given a subset of {extension, restriction} all of the following must be true:
1 If B and D are not the same type definition, then the {derivation method} of D is not in the subset.
2 One of the following is true:
2.1 B and D are the same type definition.
2.3 All of the following are true:
2.3.2 The appropriate case among the following is true:
2.3.2.1 If D's {base type definition} is complex, then it is validly derived from B given the subset as defined by this constraint.
2.3.2.2 If D's {base type definition} is simple, then it is validly derived from B given the subset as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6).
Note: This constraint is used to check that when someone uses a type in a context where another type was expected (either via xsi:type or substitution groups), that the type used is actually derived from the expected type, and that that derivation does not involve a form of derivation which was ruled out by the expected type.

Note:

The wording of clause
2.1 above appeals to a notion of component identity which is only incompletely defined by this version of this specification. In some cases, the wording of this specification does make clear the rules for component identity. These cases include:
  • When they are both top-level components with the same component type, namespace name, and local name;
  • When they are necessarily the same type definition (for example, when the two types definitions in question are the type definitions associated with two attribute or element declarations, which are discovered to be the same declaration);
  • When they are the same by construction (for example, when an element's type definition defaults to being the same type definition as that of its substitution-group head or when a complex type definition inherits an attribute declaration from its base type definition).

In other cases it is possible that conforming implementations will disagree as to whether components are identical.

3.4.7 Built-in Complex Type DefinitionDefinitions

There is a Complex Type Definition corresponding to the root of the type hierarchy present in every schema by definition:

Property
Value
rootType
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
A Content Type as follows:
Property
Value
a Particle with the following properties: properties shown below in Outer particle for rootType (§3.4.7).
Property
Value
a model group with the following properties:
Property
Value
sequence
a list containing one particle with the following properties:
Property
Value
unbounded
a wildcard with the following properties:
The empty set
a wildcard with the following properties::
The empty set

The outer particle of rootType contains a simple sequence:

Property
Value
a model group with the following properties:
Property
Value
sequence
a list containing one particle with the properties shown below in Inner particle for rootType (§3.4.7).

The inner particle of rootType contains a skip wildcard:

Property
Value
unbounded
a wildcard with the following properties:

The mixed content specification together with the skip wildcard and attribute specification produce the defining property for the root of the type hierarchy, namely that every type definition is (eventually) a restriction of it: its permissions and requirements are the least restrictive possible.

There is also a complex type definition nearly equivalent to the ·ur-type definition·for ·anyType· present in every schema by definition. It has the following properties:

Property
Value
anyType
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
The empty set
a wildcard with the following properties::
The empty set

The outer particle of ·anyType· contains a sequence with a single term:

Property
Value
a model group with the following properties:
Property
Value
sequence
a list containing one particle with the properties shown below in Inner Particle for Content Type of anyType (§3.4.7).

The inner particle of ·anyType· contains a wildcard which matches any element:

Property
Value
unbounded
a wildcard with the following properties:
Note: This specification does not provide an inventory of built-in complex type definitions for use in user schemas. A preliminary library of complex type definitions is available which includes both mathematical (e.g. rational) and utility (e.g. array) type definitions. In particular, there is a text type definition which is recommended for use as the type definition in element declarations intended for general text content, as it makes sensible provision for various aspects of internationalization. For more details, see the schema document for the type library at its namespace name: http://www.w3.org/2001/03/XMLSchema/TypeLibrary.xsd.

previous sub-section next sub-section3.5 AttributeUses

An attribute use is a utility component which controls the occurrence and defaulting behavior of attribute declarations. It plays the same role for attribute declarations in complex types that particles play for element declarations.

Example
<xs:complexType>
 . . .
 <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" use="required"/>
 <xs:attribute ref="xml:space" default="preserve"/>
 <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:numberdecimal" fixed="1.0"/>
</xs:complexType>
     
XML representations which all involve attribute uses, illustrating some of the possibilities for controlling occurrence.

3.5.1 The Attribute Use Schema Component

The attribute use schema component has the following properties:

{required} determines whether this use of an attribute declaration requires an appropriate attribute information item to be present, or merely allows it.

{attribute declaration} provides the attribute declaration itself, which will in turn determine the simple type definition used.

{value constraint} allows for local specification of a default or fixed value. This must be consistent with that of the {attribute declaration}, in that if the {attribute declaration} specifies a fixed value, the only allowed {value constraint} is the same fixed value.

3.5.2 XML Representation of Attribute Use Components

Attribute uses correspond to all uses of <attribute> which allow a use attribute. These in turn correspond to two components in each case, an attribute use and its {attribute declaration} (although note the latter is not new when the attribute use is a reference to a top-level attribute declaration). The appropriate mapping is described in XML Representation of Attribute Declaration Schema Components (§3.2.2).

3.5.4 Attribute Use Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Attribute Locally Valid (Use)
The item's ·actual value· matches the value{value} of the {value constraint}, if it is present and its {variety} is fixed.

For an attribute information item to be·valid· with respect to an attribute use its ·normalized value··actual value· must match the canonical lexical representationbe identical to the {value} of the attribute use's {value constraint} value, if it is present and has {variety} fixed.

previous sub-section next sub-section3.6 Attribute Group Definitions

A schema can name a group of attribute declarations so that they may be incorporated as a group into complex type definitions.

Attribute group definitions do not participate in ·validation· as such, but the {attribute uses} and {attribute wildcard} of one or more complex type definitions may be constructed in whole or part by reference to an attribute group. Thus, attribute group definitions provide a replacement for some uses of XML's parameter entity facility. Attribute group definitions are provided primarily for reference from the XML representation of schema components (see <complexType> and <attributeGroup>).

Example
<xs:attributeGroup name="myAttrGroup">
    <xs:attribute . . ./>
    . . .
</xs:attributeGroup>

<xs:complexType name="myelement">
    . . .
    <xs:attributeGroup ref="myAttrGroup"/>
</xs:complexType>
XML representations for attribute group definitions. The effect is as if the attribute declarations in the group were present in the type definition.