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.
Copyright © 2006 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
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.
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 31 August 2006. The major changes since the previous draft are:
maxOccurs may now be greater than 1 on particles
in an all group. The elements which match a particular
particle need not be adjacent in the input.
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.
Text in this document which does not now have Working Group consensus is marked: ||this way||.
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 Assertions
3.13 Notation Declarations
3.14 Annotations
3.15 Simple Type Definitions
3.16 Schemas as a Whole
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
A Schema for Schema 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
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 Checking content-type restriction
J Schema Components Diagram (non-normative)
K Glossary (non-normative)
L DTD for Schemas (non-normative)
M Analysis of the Unique Particle Attribution Constraint (non-normative)
N References (non-normative)
O Acknowledgements (non-normative)
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 Schema 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) (§L) and a Glossary (non-normative) (§K).
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.
The Working Group has three 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:
The aim with regard to compatibility is that
The purpose of XML Schema: Structures is to define the nature of XML schemas and their component parts, provide an inventory of XML markup constructs with which to represent schemas, and define the application of schemas to XML documents.
The purpose of an XML Schema: Structures schema is to define and describe a class of XML documents by using schema components to constrain and document the meaning, usage and relationships of their constituent parts: datatypes, elements and their content and attributes and their values. Schemas may also provide for the specification of additional document information, such as normalization and defaulting of attribute and element values. Schemas have facilities for self-documentation. Thus, XML Schema: Structures can be used to define, describe and catalogue XML vocabularies for classes of XML documents.
Any application that consumes well-formed XML can use the XML Schema: Structures formalism to express syntactic, structural and value constraints applicable to its document instances. The XML Schema: Structures formalism allows a useful level of constraint checking to be described and implemented for a wide spectrum of XML applications. However, the language defined by this specification does not attempt to provide all the facilities that might be needed by any application. Some applications may require constraint capabilities not expressible in this language, and so may need to perform their own additional validations.
The definition of XML Schema: Structures depends on the following specifications: [XML-Infoset], [XML-Namespaces 1.1], [XPath], [XPath 2.0], 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.
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:
Issue (xmpl):Issue nnnn (RQ-nnn)
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:
<schema targetNamespace="http://www.example.com/XMLSchema/1.0/mySchema">
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:
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.
example Element Information ItemReferences 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:
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:
Within normative prose in this specification, the words may, should, must and must not are defined as follows:
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).
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.
An XML Schema is 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 some or all of the PSVI, as described in Subset of the Post-schema-validation Infoset (§D.1). The mechanisms by which processors provide such 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
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.
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 14 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:
The secondary components, are as follows:
Finally, the "helper" components provide small parts of other components; they are not independent of their context:
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·.
·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·.
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.
[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:] The type definition used as the basis for an ·extension· or ·restriction· is known as the base type definition of that definition.
[Definition:] ||A type defined with the same constraints as its ·base type definition·, or with more, 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 added constraints 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 ||anyType||||rootType|| 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.
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 its ·base type definition·. [Definition:] The 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' behavior 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.
[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 (§3.15) and [XML Schema: Datatypes]. The latter also defines an extensive inventory of pre-defined simple types.
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.
For detailed information on complex type definitions, see Complex Type Definitions (§3.4).
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.
An element declaration is an association of a name with a type definition, either simple or complex, an (optional) default value and a (possibly empty) set of identity-constraint definitions. The association is either global or scoped to a containing complex type definition. A top-level element declaration with name 'A' is broadly comparable to a pair of DTD declarations as follows, where the associated type definition fills in the ellipses:
<!ELEMENT A . . .> <!ATTLIST A . . .>
Element declarations contribute to ·validation· as part of model group ·validation·, when their defaults and type components are checked against an element information item with a matching name and namespace, and by triggering identity-constraint definition ·validation·.
For detailed information on element declarations, see Element Declarations (§3.3).
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)).
An attribute declaration is an association between a name and a simple type definition, together with occurrence information and (optionally) a default value. The association is either global, or local to its containing complex type definition. Attribute declarations contribute to ·validation· as part of complex type definition ·validation·, when their occurrence, defaults and type components are checked against an attribute information item with a matching name and namespace.
For detailed information on attribute declarations, see Attribute Declarations (§3.2).
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 (§3.13).
The model group, particle, and wildcard components contribute to the portion of a complex type definition that controls an element information item's content.
A model group is a constraint in the form of a grammar fragment that applies to lists of element information items. It consists of a list of particles, i.e. element declarations, wildcards and model groups. There are three varieties of model group:
Each model group denotes a set of sequences of element information items. Regarding that set of sequences as a language, the set of sequences recognized by a group G may be written L(G). [Definition:] A model group Gis said to accept or recognize the members of L(G).
For detailed information on model groups, see Model Groups (§3.8).
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 basic term is an Element Declaration or a Wildcard. [Definition:] A basic particle is a Particle whose {term} is a ·basic term·.
[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.
Each content model, indeed each particle, denotes a set of sequences of element information items. Regarding that set of sequences as a language, the set of sequences recognized by a particle P may be written L(P). [Definition:] A particle P is said to accept or recognize the members of L(P).
If a sequence S is a member of L(P), then it is necessarily possible to trace a path through the ·basic particles· within P, with each item within S corresponding to a matching particle within P. The sequence of particles within P corresponding to S is called the ·path· of S in P.
For detailed information on particles, see Particles (§3.9).
An attribute use plays a role similar to that of a particle, but for attribute declarations: an attribute declaration within a complex type definition is embedded within an attribute use, which specifies whether the declaration requires or merely allows its attribute, and whether it has a default or fixed value.
A wildcard is a special kind of particle which matches element and attribute information items dependent on their namespace names and optionally on their local names.
For detailed information on wildcards, see Wildcards (§3.10).
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).
An assertion is a predicate associated with a type, which is checked for each instance of the type. Depending on their formulation, assertions are either required to be true of the instance, or required to be false. If an element or attribute information item fails to satisfy an assertion associated with a given type, then that information item is not locally ·valid· with respect to that type.
For detailed information on Assertions, see Assertions (§3.12).
There are two kinds of convenience definitions provided to enable the re-use of pieces of complex type definitions: model group definitions and attribute group definitions.
A model group definition is an association between a name and a model group, enabling re-use of the same model group in several complex type definitions.
For detailed information on model group definitions, see Model Group Definitions (§3.7).
An attribute group definition is an association between a name and a set of attribute declarations, enabling re-use of the same set in several complex type definitions.
For detailed information on attribute group definitions, see Attribute Group Definitions (§3.6).
An annotation is information for human and/or mechanical consumers. The interpretation of such information is not defined in this specification.
For detailed information on annotations, see Annotations (§3.14).
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:
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.
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 be 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.
[Definition:] Web-aware processors are network-enabled processors which are not only both ·minimally conforming· and ·schema-document aware·, but which additionally must be capable of accessing schema documents from the World Wide Web as described in Representation of Schemas on the World Wide Web (§2.7) and How schema definitions are located on the Web (§4.3.2). .
See Schemas and Namespaces: Access and Composition (§4) for a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms supporting these levels of conformance.
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.
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).
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 (§3.16.3) for
the means by which the ·QName· is
associated with a type definition.
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.
The xsi:schemaLocation and xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation
attributes can be used in a document to provide
hints as to the physical location of schema documents which may
be used for ·assessment·.
See How schema definitions are located on the Web (§4.3.2) for details on the use of these attributes.
On the World Wide Web, schemas are conventionally represented as XML
documents (preferably of MIME type
application/xml or text/xml, but see clause 1.1 of Inclusion Constraints and Semantics (§4.2.1)), conforming to the specifications in Layer 2: Schema Documents, Namespaces and Composition (§4.2). For more information on
the representation and use of schema documents on the World Wide Web see Standards for representation of schemas and retrieval of schema documents on the Web (§4.3.1) and
How schema definitions are located on the Web (§4.3.2).
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
The sub-sections immediately below introduce conventions and terminology used throughout the component sections.
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, decimal) 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."
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 defined as optional is 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].
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 Schema Documents (Structures) (normative) (§A) and DTD for Schemas (non-normative) (§L)) 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:
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 Schema 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 Schema 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.
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·:
#x9 (tab), #xA (line feed) and
#xD (carriage return) are replaced with #x20 (space).#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 1.2).
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.
Attribute declarations provide for:
<xs:attribute name="age" type="xs:positiveInteger" use="required"/>
The attribute declaration schema component has the following properties:
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} with {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 {value}
and {lexical form} used
whenever the attribute is not actually present; fixed indicates that the attribute value if present must be identical to {value}, and if absent receives {value}
and {lexical form} as for
default. Note that it is values that are
checked, not strings.
See Annotations (§3.14) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.
[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.
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 bothuse='prohibited'andfixed='...'. 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:
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>
targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema>
element information item, or ·absent· if there is none.type [attribute], if present, otherwise the
·simple ur-type definition·.default or a fixed
[attribute], then a Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
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):default or a fixed
[attribute], then a Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
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·.type [attribute], if present, otherwise the
·simple ur-type definition·.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):default or a fixed
[attribute], then a Value Constraint as follows, otherwise ·absent·.
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 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.
default and fixed must not both be present.ref or name is present, but not both.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.
All attribute declarations (see Attribute Declarations (§3.2)) must satisfy the following constraints.
xsi: Not Allowedhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
(unless it is one of the four built-in declarations given in the next section).xsi:type or xsi:nil, which would be
seriously misleading, as they would have no effect.There are four attribute declarations present in every schema by definition:
typehttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instancenilhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instanceschemaLocationhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instancehttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instancenoNamespaceSchemaLocationhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instanceElement declarations provide for:
<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>
The element declaration schema component has the following properties:
The {name} property must match the local part of the names of element information items being ·validated·.
A {scope} with {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 present, and if the element being ·validated· is empty, then the {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 be intentical to the {value constraint}'s {value}.
{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 (§3.14) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.
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:
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>
targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none.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·||.default or a fixed [attribute], then
a 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).
substitutionGroup [attribute], if present, otherwise ·absent·.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:#all, then {extension, restriction, substitution};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).final and finalDefault [attributes] in place of the
block and blockDefault
[attributes] and with the
relevant set being {extension, restriction}.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):maxOccurs
[attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs
[attribute], if present, otherwise 1.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·.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):maxOccurs
[attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs
[attribute], if present, otherwise 1.<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 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>.
<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>
myLocalElement within
contextOne will be constrained by myFirstType,
while those within contextTwo will be constrained by
mySecondType. <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>
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).default and fixed
are not
both present.ref or name is present, but not both.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.http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local
name] is nil.false.true, and
all of the following are true:http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local
name] is type, then
all of the following are true:http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is one of type, nil, schemaLocation or noNamespaceSchemaLocation.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.http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is type.Editorial Note: Priority Feedback Request
In version 1.0 of this specification, the fallback to lax validation described in the preceding paragraph was optional, not required. The XML Schema Working Group solicits input from implementors and users of this specification as to whether this change is desirable and acceptable.
xsi:type [attribute] is involved, however, clause 1.2
takes precedence,
as is made clear in Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4).All element declarations (see Element Declarations (§3.3)) must satisfy the following constraint.
The following constraints define relations appealed to elsewhere in this specification.
[Definition:] One element declaration is validly substitutable for another if together they satisfy constraint Substitution Group OK (Transitive) (§3.3.6).
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.
<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>
A complex type definition schema component has the following properties:
Either an Element Declaration or a Complex Type Definition.
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 visxs:complexType,xs:complexContentandxs: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:
- All components have an {annotations} property;
- It contains a sequence of annotations;
- Namely all annotations "scoped" by this component, but not "scoped" by any other component "further down".
- 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.
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}. See Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4), The Wildcard Schema Component (§3.10.1) and Wildcard allows Expanded 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.
{assertions} constrain elements and attributes to exist, not to exist, or to have specified values. Though specified as a sequence, the order among the assertions is not significant during assessment. See Assertions (§3.12).
See Annotations (§3.14) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.
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 {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.
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?), (assert | report)*)))
</complexType>
targetNamespace [attribute] of the <schema> ancestor
element information item if present, otherwise ·absent·.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:#all, then {extension, restriction};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).final and finalDefault [attributes] in place of the
block and blockDefault
[attributes].name [attribute] is present, then ·absent·,
otherwise (the parent element information item will be <element>), the Element Declaration corresponding to that parent information item.<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?), (assert | report)*)
</restriction>
<extension
base = QName
id = ID
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: (annotation?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?), (assert | report)*)
</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))
)
notNamespace = List of
(anyURI | (##targetNamespace | ##local))
notQName = List of QName
processContents = (lax | skip | strict) : strict
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: (annotation?)
</anyAttribute>
ref
[attribute] of the <attributeGroup> [children], if any.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:use [attribute] of the relevant <attribute> among the
[children] of <restriction> being prohibited.base [attribute] is a complex type definition
with an {attribute wildcard}, then that {attribute wildcard}.base [attribute] is a complex type definition whose own {content type} has {variety} simple and the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then starting from either
base [attribute]base [attribute] is a complex type definition
whose own {content type} has {variety}
mixed and {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) (§3.15.6);
base [attribute] is a complex type definition
(whose own {content type} must have {variety} simple, see below) and the <extension> alternative is chosen, then
the {simple type definition} of the {content type} of that complex type definition;base [attribute] is a simple type definition and
the <extension> alternative is chosen), then
that simple type definition.<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?), (assert | report)*)
</restriction>
<extension
base = QName
id = ID
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: (annotation?, ((group | all | choice | sequence)?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?), (assert | report)*))
</extension>
ref
[attribute] of the <attributeGroup> [children], if any.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:use [attribute] of the relevant <attribute> among the
[children] of <restriction> being prohibited.false.minOccurs [attribute] has the ·actual value· 0;true, then A particle whose properties are as follows:
true, otherwise elementOnlybase [attribute]base [attribute] has a {content type} with {variety} empty
or simple, then a Content Type
as per clause 3.1.2 above;true, otherwise elementOnlybase [attribute] followed by the
·effective content·.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.
<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>
length3 is the abbreviated alternative to
length2: they correspond to identical type definition components.
<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><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><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:decimal"/> </xs:complexType>
mixed attribute appearing on complexType itself.base [attribute] must be a complex type definition;base [attribute] is
one of the following:<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.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: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.
All complex type definitions (see Complex Type Definitions (§3.4)) must satisfy the following constraints.
[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).
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:"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."
A type definition R is a valid ·restriction· of another type definition B if and only if:
[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.
The following constraint defines a relation appealed to elsewhere in this specification.
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:There is a Complex Type Definition corresponding to the root of the type hierarchy present in every schema by definition:
The outer particle of rootType contains a simple sequence:
The inner particle of rootType contains a skip wildcard:
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:
The outer particle of ·anyType· contains a sequence with a single term:
The inner particle of ·anyType· contains a wildcard which matches any element:
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.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.
<xs:complexType>
. . .
<xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" use="required"/>
<xs:attribute ref="xml:space" default="preserve"/>
<xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:decimal" fixed="1.0"/>
</xs:complexType>
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.
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).
All attribute uses (see AttributeUses (§3.5)) must satisfy the following constraints.
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>).
<xs:attributeGroup name="myAttrGroup">
<xs:attribute . . ./>
. . .
</xs:attributeGroup>
<xs:complexType name="myelement">
. . .
<xs:attributeGroup ref="myAttrGroup"/>
</xs:complexType>
The attribute group definition schema component has the following properties:
Attribute groups are identified by their {name} and {target namespace}; attribute group identities must be unique within an ·XML Schema·. See References to schema components across namespaces (<import>) (§4.2.3) for the use of component
identifiers when importing one schema into another.
{attribute uses} is a set attribute uses, allowing for local specification of occurrence and default or fixed values.
{attribute wildcard} provides for an attribute wildcard to be included in an attribute group. See above under Complex Type Definitions (§3.4) for the interpretation of attribute wildcards during ·validation·.
See Annotations (§3.14) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.
The XML representation for an attribute group definition schema component is an <attributeGroup> element information item. It provides for naming a group of attribute declarations and an attribute wildcard for use by reference in the XML representation of complex type definitions and other attribute group definitions. The correspondences between the properties of the information item and properties of the component it corresponds to are as follows:
attributeGroup Element Information Item<attributeGroup
id = ID
name = NCName
ref = QName
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: (annotation?, ((attribute | attributeGroup)*, anyAttribute?))
</attributeGroup>
targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent schema
element information item.ref
[attribute] of the <attributeGroup> [children], if any.The example above illustrates a pattern which
recurs in the XML representation of schemas: The same element, in this case attributeGroup, serves both to
define and to incorporate by reference. In the first case the
name attribute is required, in the second the ref
attribute is required, and the element must be empty. These two are mutually exclusive, and also conditioned
by context: the defining form, with a name, must occur at the top
level of a schema, whereas the referring form, with a ref, must
occur within a complex type definition or an attribute group definition.
ref
[attribute] which resolves to the component corresponding to this
<attributeGroup>. Indirect circularity is also ruled
out. That is, when QName resolution (Schema Document) (§3.16.3) is applied to a
·QName· arising from any <attributeGroup>s with a ref
[attribute] among the [children], it must not be the case that a
·QName· is encountered at any depth
which resolves to the component corresponding to this <attributeGroup>.All attribute group definitions (see Attribute Group Definitions (§3.6)) must satisfy the following constraint.
A model group definition associates a name and optional annotations with a Model Group. By reference to the name, the entire model group can be incorporated by reference into a {term}.
Model group definitions are provided primarily for reference from the XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions (§3.4.2) (see <complexType> and <group>). Thus, model group definitions provide a replacement for some uses of XML's parameter entity facility.
<xs:group name="myModelGroup"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="someThing"/> . . . </xs:sequence> </xs:group> <xs:complexType name="trivial"> <xs:group ref="myModelGroup"/> <xs:attribute .../> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="moreSo"> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="anotherThing"/> <xs:group ref="myModelGroup"/> </xs:choice> <xs:attribute .../> </xs:complexType>
The model group definition schema component has the following properties:
Model group definitions are identified by their {name} and {target namespace}; model group identities must be unique within an ·XML Schema·. See References to schema components across namespaces (<import>) (§4.2.3) for the use of component
identifiers when importing one schema into another.
Model group definitions per se do not participate in ·validation·, but the {term} of a particle may correspond in whole or in part to a model group from a model group definition.
{model group} is the Model Group for which the model group definition provides a name.
See Annotations (§3.14) for information on the role of the {annotations} property.
The XML representation for a model group definition schema component is a <group> element information item. It provides for naming a model group for use by reference in the XML representation of complex type definitions and model groups. T