W3C

XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition

W3C Recommendation 28 October 2004

This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/
Editors:
Henry S. Thompson, University of Edinburgh <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
David Beech, Oracle Corporation <David.Beech@oracle.com>
Murray Maloney, for Commerce One <murray@muzmo.com>
Noah Mendelsohn, Lotus Development Corporation <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>

Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections.

This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XML, XHTML with visible change markup, Independent copy of the schema for schema documents, and Independent copy of the DTD for schema documents. See also translations.


Abstract

XML Schema: Structures specifies the XML Schema definition language, which offers facilities for describing the structure and constraining the contents of XML 1.0 documents, including those which exploit the XML Namespace facility. The schema language, which is itself represented in XML 1.0 and uses namespaces, substantially reconstructs and considerably extends the capabilities found in XML 1.0 document type definitions (DTDs). This specification depends on XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes.

Status of this Document

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

This is a W3C Recommendation, which forms part of the Second Edition of XML Schema. This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties and has been endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a normative reference from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

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 are discussed in the XML Schema Requirements 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 under the 24 January 2002 Current Patent Practice (CPP) as amended by the W3C Patent Policy Transition Procedure. The Working Group maintains a public list of patent disclosures relevant to this document; 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) with respect to this specification should 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/2001/05/xmlschema-translations.

This second edition is not a new version, it merely incorporates the changes dictated by the corrections to errors found in the first edition as agreed by the XML Schema Working Group, as a convenience to readers. A separate list of all such corrections is available at http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-errata.

The errata list for this second edition is available at http://www.w3.org/2004/03/xmlschema-errata.

Please report errors in this document to www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org (archive).

Note: David Beech has retired since the publication of the first edition, and can be reached at davidbeech@earthlink.net.

Murray Maloney is no longer affiliated with Commerce One; his contact details are unchanged.

Noah Mendelsohn's affiliation has changed since the publication of the first edition. He is now at IBM, and can be contacted at noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

Table of Contents

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

Appendices

A Schema for Schemas (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 Required Information Set Items and Properties (normative)
E Schema Components Diagram (non-normative)
F Glossary (non-normative)
G DTD for Schemas (non-normative)
H Analysis of the Unique Particle Attribution Constraint (non-normative)
I References (non-normative)
J Acknowledgements (non-normative)


1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

previous sub-section 1.3 Documentation Conventions and Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

Schema ComponentExample
{example property}
Definition of the property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{example property}Description of what the property corresponds to, e.g. the value of the size [attribute]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: General comments directed to all readers.

Following [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)], within normative prose in this specification, the words may and must are defined as follows:

may
Conforming documents and XML Schema-aware processors are permitted to but need not behave as described.
must
Conforming documents and XML Schema-aware processors are required to behave as described; otherwise they are in error.

Note however that this specification provides a definition of error and of conformant processors' responsibilities with respect to errors (see Schemas and Schema-validity Assessment (§5)) which is considerably more complex than that of [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)].

2 Conceptual Framework

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

next sub-section2.1 Overview of XML Schema

An XML Schema consists 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. [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.

Schema-validity assessment has two aspects:

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

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

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

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

This specification builds on [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)] and [XML-Namespaces]. 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 1.0 (Second Edition)]) and namespace conformance (as defined in [XML-Namespaces]) for all candidates for ·assessment· and for all ·schema documents·.

Just as [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)] and [XML-Namespaces] can be described in terms of information items, XML Schemas can be described in terms of an abstract data model. In defining XML Schemas in terms of an abstract data model, this specification rigorously specifies the information which must be available to a conforming XML Schema processor. The abstract model for schemas is conceptual only, and does not mandate any particular implementation or representation of this information. To facilitate interoperation and sharing of schema information, a normative XML interchange format for schemas is provided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 have and be identified by names, which are NCNames as defined by [XML-Namespaces].

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

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

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

2.2.1 Type Definition Components

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

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

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

2.2.1.1 Type Definition Hierarchy

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

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

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

2.2.1.2 Simple Type Definition

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

Each simple type definition, whether built-in (that is, defined in [XML Schemas: Datatypes]) or user-defined, is a ·restriction· of some particular simple ·base type definition·. For the built-in primitive type definitions, this is [Definition:]  the simple ur-type definition, a special restriction of the ·ur-type definition·, whose name is anySimpleType in the XML Schema namespace. 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 mapping from lexical space to value space is unspecified for items whose type definition is the ·simple ur-type definition·. Accordingly this specification does not constrain processors' behaviour in areas where this mapping is implicated, for example checking such items against enumerations, constructing default attributes or elements whose declared type definition is the ·simple ur-type definition·, checking identity constraints involving such items.

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

Simple types may also be defined whose members are lists of items themselves constrained by some other simple type definition, or whose membership is the union of the memberships of some other simple type definitions. Such list and union simple type definitions are also restrictions of the ·simple ur-type definition·.

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

2.2.1.3 Complex Type Definition

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

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

or

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

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

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

2.2.2 Declaration Components

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

2.2.2.2 Element Substitution Group

In XML 1.0, the name and content of an element must correspond exactly to the element type referenced in the corresponding content model.

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

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

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

2.2.2.4 Notation Declaration

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

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

2.2.3 Model Group Components

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

2.2.3.2 Particle

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

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

Note: XML Schema: Structures ·content models· are similar to but more expressive than [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)] content models; unlike [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)], XML Schema: Structures applies ·content models· to the ·validation· of both mixed and element-only content.

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

2.2.4 Identity-constraint Definition Components

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

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

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

The [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)] specification describes two kinds of constraints on XML documents: well-formedness and validity constraints. Informally, the well-formedness constraints are those imposed by the definition of XML itself (such as the rules for the use of the < and > characters and the rules for proper nesting of elements), while validity constraints are the further constraints on document structure provided by a particular DTD.

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

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

The last of these, schema information set contributions, are not as new as they might at first seem. XML 1.0 validation augments the XML 1.0 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 1.0 left implicit.

previous sub-section next sub-section2.4 Conformance

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

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

[Definition:]  ·Minimally conforming· processors which accept schemas represented in the form of XML documents as described in Layer 2: Schema Documents, Namespaces and Composition (§4.2) are additionally said to provide conformance to the XML Representation of Schemas. 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·.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.6.1 xsi:type

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

2.6.2 xsi:nil

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

3 Schema Component Details

next sub-section3.1 Introduction

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

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

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

3.1.1 Components and Properties

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

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

[Definition:]  Throughout this specification, the term absent is used as a distinguished property value denoting absence.

Any property not identified as optional is required to be 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 1.0 (Second Edition)].

3.1.2 XML Representations of Components

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

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

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

3.1.3 The Mapping between XML Representations and Components

For each kind of schema component there is a corresponding normative XML representation. The sections below describe the correspondences between the properties of each kind of schema component on the one hand and the properties of information items in that XML representation on the other, together with constraints on that representation above and beyond those implicit in the Schema for Schemas (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 Schemas (normative) (§A), there is always a simple type definition associated with any such attribute information item. [Definition:]  The phrase actual value is used to refer to the member of the value space of the simple type definition associated with an attribute information item which corresponds to its ·normalized value·. This will often be a string, but may also be an integer, a boolean, a URI reference, etc. This term is also occasionally used with respect to element or attribute information items in a document being ·validated·.

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

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

3.1.4 White Space Normalization during Validation

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

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

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

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

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

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

These three levels of normalization correspond to the processing mandated in XML 1.0 for element content, CDATA attribute content and tokenized attributed content, respectively. See Attribute Value Normalization in [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)] for the precedent for replace and collapse for attributes. Extending this processing to element content is necessary to ensure a consistent ·validation· semantics for simple types, regardless of whether they are applied to attributes or elements. Performing it twice in the case of attributes whose [normalized value] has already been subject to replacement or collapse on the basis of information in a DTD is necessary to ensure consistent treatment of attributes regardless of the extent to which DTD-based information has been made use of during infoset construction.

Note: Even when DTD-based information has been appealed to, and Attribute Value Normalization has taken place, the above definition of ·normalized value· may mean further normalization takes place, as for instance when character entity references in attribute values result in white space characters other than spaces in their ·initial value·s.

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

Attribute declarations provide for:

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

3.2.1 The Attribute Declaration Schema Component

The attribute declaration schema component has the following properties:

{name}
An NCName as defined by [XML-Namespaces].
{target namespace}
Either ·absent· or a namespace name, as defined in [XML-Namespaces].
{type definition}
A simple type definition.
{scope}
Optional. Either global or a complex type definition.
{value constraint}
Optional. A pair consisting of a value and one of default, fixed.
{annotation}
Optional. An annotation.

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} of 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} 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 1.0 default and #FIXED attribute values. default specifies that the attribute is to appear unconditionally in the ·post-schema-validation infoset·, with the supplied value used whenever the attribute is not actually present; fixed indicates that the attribute value if present must equal the supplied constraint value, and if absent receives the supplied value as for default. Note that it is values that are supplied and/or checked, not strings.

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

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

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

3.2.2 XML Representation of Attribute Declaration Schema Components

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

XML Representation Summaryattribute Element Information Item

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

If the <attribute> element information item has <schema> as its parent, the corresponding schema component is as follows:
Attribute Declaration Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{name}The ·actual value· of the name [attribute]
{target namespace}The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none.
{type definition}The simple type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise the simple type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the type [attribute], if present, otherwise the ·simple ur-type definition·.
{scope}global.
{value constraint}If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting of the ·actual value· (with respect to the {type definition}) of that [attribute] and either default or fixed, as appropriate, otherwise ·absent·.
{annotation}The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
otherwise if the <attribute> element information item has <complexType> or <attributeGroup> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is absent, it corresponds to an attribute use with properties as follows (unless use='prohibited', in which case the item corresponds to nothing at all):
Attribute Use Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{required}true if the use [attribute] is present with ·actual value· required, otherwise false.
{attribute declaration}See the Attribute Declaration mapping immediately below.
{value constraint}If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting of the ·actual value· (with respect to the {type definition} of the {attribute declaration}) of that [attribute] and either default or fixed, as appropriate, otherwise ·absent·.
Attribute Declaration Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{name}The ·actual value· of the name [attribute]
{target namespace}If form is present and its ·actual value· is qualified, or if form is absent and the ·actual value· of attributeFormDefault on the <schema> ancestor is qualified, then the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is none, otherwise ·absent·.
{type definition}The simple type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise the simple type definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the type [attribute], if present, otherwise the ·simple ur-type definition·.
{scope}If the <attribute> element information item has <complexType> as an ancestor, the complex definition corresponding to that item, otherwise (the <attribute> element information item is within an <attributeGroup> definition), ·absent·.
{value constraint}·absent·.
{annotation}The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
otherwise (the <attribute> element information item has <complexType> or <attributeGroup> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is present), it corresponds to an attribute use with properties as follows (unless use='prohibited', in which case the item corresponds to nothing at all):
Attribute Use Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{required}true if the use [attribute] is present with ·actual value· required, otherwise false.
{attribute declaration}The (top-level) attribute declaration ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the ref [attribute]
{value constraint}If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting of the ·actual value· (with respect to the {type definition} of the {attribute declaration}) of that [attribute] and either default or fixed, as appropriate, 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 this is ·absent·, the item must be unqualified). Control over whether attribute information items ·validated· by a local declaration must be similarly qualified or not is provided by the form [attribute], whose default is provided by the attributeFormDefault [attribute] on the enclosing <schema>, via its determination of {target namespace}.

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

3.2.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Attribute Declarations

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

3.2.4 Attribute Declaration Validation Rules

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.5 Attribute Declaration Information Set Contributions

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

Either

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

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

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

3.2.6 Constraints on Attribute Declaration Schema Components

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

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

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

Element declarations provide for:

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

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

3.3.1 The Element Declaration Schema Component

The element declaration schema component has the following properties:

{name}
An NCName as defined by [XML-Namespaces].
{target namespace}
Either ·absent· or a namespace name, as defined in [XML-Namespaces].
{type definition}
Either a simple type definition or a complex type definition.
{scope}
Optional. Either global or a complex type definition.
{value constraint}
Optional. A pair consisting of a value and one of default, fixed.
{nillable}
A boolean.
{identity-constraint definitions}
A set of constraint definitions.
{substitution group affiliation}
Optional. A top-level element definition.
{substitution group exclusions}
A subset of {extension, restriction}.
{disallowed substitutions}
A subset of {substitution, extension, restriction}.
{abstract}
A boolean.
{annotation}
Optional. An annotation.

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

A {scope} of 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} property. This property is ·absent· in the case of declarations within named model groups: their scope is 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· 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 may 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 default is specified, and if the element being ·validated· is empty, then the canonical form of the supplied constraint value 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 match the supplied constraint value.

Note: The provision of defaults for elements goes beyond what is possible in XML 1.0 DTDs, and does not exactly correspond to defaults for attributes. In particular, an element with a non-empty {value constraint} whose simple type definition includes the empty string in its lexical space will nonetheless never receive that value, because the {value constraint} will override it.

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

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

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

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

3.3.2 XML Representation of Element Declaration Schema Components

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

XML Representation Summaryelement Element Information Item

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

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

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

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

Element information items ·validated· by a top-level declaration must be qualified with the {target namespace} of that declaration (if this is ·absent·, the item must be unqualified). 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·. This has the important consequence that the minimum valid element declaration, that is, one with only a name attribute and no contents, is also (nearly) the most general, validating any combination of text and element content and allowing any attributes, and providing for recursive validation where possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: The possibility that differing attribute declarations and/or content models would apply to elements with the same name in different contexts is an extension beyond the expressive power of a DTD in XML 1.0.
Example
 <xs:complexType name="facet">
  <xs:complexContent>
   <xs:extension base="xs:annotated">
    <xs:attribute name="value" use="required"/>
   </xs:extension>
  </xs:complexContent>
 </xs:complexType>

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

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

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

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

3.3.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Element Declarations

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

3.3.4 Element Declaration Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Element)
For an element information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to an element declaration all of the following must be true:
1 The declaration must not be ·absent·.
2 Its {abstract} must be false.
3 The appropriate case among the following must be true:
3.1 If {nillable} is false, then there must be no attribute information item among the element information item's [attributes] whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is nil.
3.2 If {nillable} is true and there is such an attribute information item and its ·actual value· is true , then all of the following must be true:
3.2.1 The element information item must have no character or element information item [children].
3.2.2 There must be no fixed {value constraint}.
4 If there is an attribute information item among the element information item's [attributes] whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is type, then all of the following must be true:
4.1 The ·normalized value· of that attribute information item must be ·valid· with respect to the built-in QName simple type, as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4);
4.2 The ·local name· and ·namespace name· (as defined in QName Interpretation (§3.15.3)), of the ·actual value· of that attribute information item must resolve to a type definition, as defined in QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4) -- [Definition:]  call this type definition the local type definition;
4.3 The ·local type definition· must be validly derived from the {type definition} given the union of the {disallowed substitutions} and the {type definition}'s {prohibited substitutions}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if it is a complex type definition), or given {disallowed substitutions} as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6) (if it is a simple type definition).
[Definition:]  The phrase actual type definition occurs below. If the above three clauses are satisfied, this should be understood as referring to the ·local type definition·, otherwise to the {type definition}.
5 The appropriate case among the following must be true:
5.1 If the declaration has a {value constraint}, the item has neither element nor character [children] and clause 3.2 has not applied, then all of the following must be true:
5.1.2 The element information item with the canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value used as its ·normalized value· must be ·valid· with respect to the ·actual type definition· as defined by Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4).
5.2 If the declaration has no {value constraint} or the item has either element or character [children] or clause 3.2 has applied, then all of the following must be true:
5.2.1 The element information item must be ·valid· with respect to the ·actual type definition· as defined by Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4).
5.2.2 If there is a fixed {value constraint} and clause 3.2 has not applied, all of the following must be true:
5.2.2.1 The element information item must have no element information item [children].
5.2.2.2 The appropriate case among the following must be true:
5.2.2.2.1 If the {content type} of the ·actual type definition· is mixed, then the ·initial value· of the item must match the canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value.
5.2.2.2.2 If the {content type} of the ·actual type definition· is a simple type definition, then the ·actual value· of the item must match the canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value.
6 The element information item must be ·valid· with respect to each of the {identity-constraint definitions} as per Identity-constraint Satisfied (§3.11.4).
7 If the element information item is the ·validation root·, it must be ·valid· per Validation Root Valid (ID/IDREF) (§3.3.4).
Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Type)
For an element information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to a type definition all of the following must be true:
1 The type definition must not be ·absent·;
2 It must not have {abstract} with value true.
3 The appropriate case among the following must be true:
3.1 If the type definition is a simple type definition, then all of the following must be true:
3.1.1 The element information item's [attributes] must be empty, excepting those whose [namespace name] is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] is one of type, nil, schemaLocation or noNamespaceSchemaLocation.
3.1.2 The element information item must have no element information item [children].
3.1.3 If clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) did not apply, then the ·normalized value· must be ·valid· with respect to the type definition as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4).
3.2 If the type definition is a complex type definition, then the element information item must be ·valid· with respect to the type definition as per Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4);
Validation Rule: Validation Root Valid (ID/IDREF)
For an element information item which is the ·validation root· to be ·valid· all of the following must be true:
1 There must be no ID/IDREF binding in the item's [ID/IDREF table] whose [binding] is the empty set.
2 There must be no ID/IDREF binding in the item's [ID/IDREF table] whose [binding] has more than one member.

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

Note: The first clause above applies when there is a reference to an undefined ID. The second applies when there is a multiply-defined ID. They are separated out to ensure that distinct error codes (see Outcome Tabulations (normative) (§C)) are associated with these two cases.
Note: Although this rule applies at the ·validation root·, in practice processors, particularly streaming processors, may wish to detect and signal the clause 2 case as it arises.
Note: This reconstruction of [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)]'s ID/IDREF functionality is imperfect in that if the ·validation root· is not the document element of an XML document, the results will not necessarily be the same as those a validating parser would give were the document to have a DTD with equivalent declarations.
Validation Rule: Schema-Validity Assessment (Element)
The schema-validity assessment of an element information item depends on its ·validation· and the ·assessment· of its element information item children and associated attribute information items, if any.

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.5 Element Declaration Information Set Contributions

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

Either

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

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

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

3.3.6 Constraints on Element Declaration Schema Components

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

Schema Component Constraint: Element Declaration Properties Correct
All of the following must be true:
2 If there is a {value constraint}, the canonical lexical representation of its value must be ·valid· with respect to the {type definition} as defined in Element Default Valid (Immediate) (§3.3.6).
3 If there is a non-·absent· {substitution group affiliation}, then {scope} must be global.
4 If there is a {substitution group affiliation}, the {type definition} of the element declaration must be validly derived from the {type definition} of the {substitution group affiliation}, given the value of the {substitution group exclusions} of the {substitution group affiliation}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if the {type definition} is complex) or as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6) (if the {type definition} is simple).
5 If the {type definition} or {type definition}'s {content type} is or is derived from ID then there must not be a {value constraint}.
Note: The use of ID as a type definition for elements goes beyond XML 1.0, and should be avoided if backwards compatibility is desired.
6 Circular substitution groups are disallowed. That is, it must not be possible to return to an element declaration by repeatedly following the {substitution group affiliation} property.

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

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

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

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

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

Complex Type Definitions provide for:

  • Constraining element information items by providing Attribute Declaration (§2.2.2.3)s governing the appearance and content of [attributes]
  • Constraining element information item [children] to be empty, or to conform to a specified element-only or mixed content model, or else constraining the character information item [children] to conform to a specified simple type definition.
  • Using the mechanisms of Type Definition Hierarchy (§2.2.1.1) to derive a complex type from another simple or complex type.
  • Specifying ·post-schema-validation infoset contributions· for elements.
  • Limiting the ability to derive additional types from a given complex type.
  • Controlling the permission to substitute, in an instance, elements of a derived type for elements declared in a content model to be of a given complex type.
Example
<xs:complexType name="PurchaseOrderType">
  <xs:sequence>
   <xs:element name="shipTo" type="USAddress"/>
   <xs:element name="billTo" type="USAddress"/>
   <xs:element ref="comment" minOccurs="0"/>
   <xs:element name="items"  type="Items"/>
  </xs:sequence>
  <xs:attribute name="orderDate" type="xs:date"/>
 </xs:complexType>
The XML representation of a complex type definition.

3.4.1 The Complex Type Definition Schema Component

A complex type definition schema component has the following properties:

{name}
Optional. An NCName as defined by [XML-Namespaces].
{target namespace}
Either ·absent· or a namespace name, as defined in [XML-Namespaces].
{base type definition}
Either a simple type definition or a complex type definition.
{derivation method}
Either extension or restriction.
{final}
A subset of {extension, restriction}.
{abstract}
A boolean
{attribute uses}
A set of attribute uses.
{attribute wildcard}
Optional. A wildcard.
{content type}
One of empty, a simple type definition or a pair consisting of a ·content model· (I.e. a Particle (§2.2.3.2)) and one of mixed, element-only.
{prohibited substitutions}
A subset of {extension, restriction}.
{annotations}
A set of annotations.

Complex types 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 (§4.2.3) for the use of component identifiers when importing one schema into another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.2 XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions

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

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

XML Representation SummarycomplexType Element Information Item

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<xs:complexType name="length3">
 <xs:sequence>
  <xs:element name="size" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"/>
  <xs:element name="unit" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
 </xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Complex Type Definitions

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

3.4.4 Complex Type Definition Validation Rules

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

3.4.5 Complex Type Definition Information Set Contributions

Schema Information Set Contribution: Attribute Default Value
For each attribute use in the {attribute uses} whose {required} is false and whose {value constraint} is not ·absent· but whose {attribute declaration} does not match one of the attribute information items in the element information item's [attributes] as per clause 3.1 of Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) (§3.4.4) above, the ·post-schema-validation infoset· has an attribute information item whose properties are as below added to the [attributes] of the element information item.
[local name]
The {attribute declaration}'s {name}.
[namespace name]
The {attribute declaration}'s {target namespace}.
[schema normalized value]
The canonical lexical representation of the ·effective value constraint· value.
[schema default]
The canonical lexical representation of the ·effective value constraint· value.
[validation context]
The nearest ancestor element information item with a [schema information] property.
[validity]
valid.
[validation attempted]
full.
[schema specified]
schema.
The added items should also either have [type definition] (and [member type definition] if appropriate) properties, or their lighter-weight alternatives, as specified in Attribute Validated by Type (§3.2.5).

3.4.6 Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:

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

In other cases two conforming implementations may disagree as to whether components are identical.

3.4.7 Built-in Complex Type Definition

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

Complex Type Definition of the Ur-Type
PropertyValue
{name}anyType
{target namespace}http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
{base type definition}Itself
{derivation method}restriction
{content type}A pair consisting of mixed and a particle with the following properties:
PropertyValue
{min occurs}1
{max occurs}1
{term}a model group with the following properties:
PropertyValue
{compositor}sequence
{particles} a list containing one particle with the following properties:
PropertyValue
{min occurs}0
{max occurs}unbounded
{term}a wildcard with the following properties:
PropertyValue
{namespace constraint}any
{process contents}lax
{attribute uses}The empty set
{attribute wildcard} a wildcard with the following properties::
PropertyValue
{namespace constraint}any
{process contents}lax
{final}The empty set
{prohibited substitutions}The empty set
{abstract}false

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

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

previous sub-section next sub-section3.5 AttributeUses

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

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

3.5.1 The Attribute Use Schema Component

The attribute use schema component has the following properties:

{required}
A boolean.
{attribute declaration}
An attribute declaration.
{value constraint}
Optional. A pair consisting of a value and one of default, fixed.

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

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

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

3.5.2 XML Representation of Attribute Use Components

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.6.1 The Attribute Group Definition Schema Component

The attribute group definition schema component has the following properties:

{name}
An NCName as defined by [XML-Namespaces].
{target namespace}
Either ·absent· or a namespace name, as defined in [XML-Namespaces].
{attribute uses}
A set of attribute uses.
{attribute wildcard}
Optional. A wildcard.
{annotation}
Optional. An annotation.

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 (§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 (§3.13) for information on the role of the {annotation} property.

3.6.2 XML Representation of Attribute Group Definition Schema Components

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:

XML Representation SummaryattributeGroup Element Information Item

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

When an <attributeGroup> appears as a daughter of <schema> or <redefine>, it corresponds to an attribute group definition as below. When it appears as a daughter of <complexType> or <attributeGroup>, it does not correspond to any component as such.
Attribute Group Definition Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{name}The ·actual value· of the name [attribute]
{target namespace}The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent schema element information item.
{attribute uses}The union of the set of attribute uses corresponding to the <attribute> [children], if any, with the {attribute uses} of the attribute groups ·resolved· to by the ·actual value·s of the ref [attribute] of the <attributeGroup> [children], if any.
{attribute wildcard}As for the ·complete wildcard· as described in XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions (§3.4.2).
{annotation}The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.

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.

3.6.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Attribute Group Definitions

Schema Representation Constraint: Attribute Group Definition Representation OK
In addition to the conditions imposed on <attributeGroup> element information items by the schema for schemas, all of the following must be true:
1 The corresponding attribute group definition, if any, must satisfy the conditions set out in Constraints on Attribute Group Definition Schema Components (§3.6.6).
2 If clause 2.2.1 or clause 2.2.2 in the correspondence specification in XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions (§3.4.2) for {attribute wildcard}, as referenced above, is satisfied, the intensional intersection must be expressible, as defined in Attribute Wildcard Intersection (§3.10.6).
3 Circular group reference is disallowed outside <redefine>. That is, unless this element information item's parent is <redefine>, then among the [children], if any, there must not be an <attributeGroup> with ref [attribute] which resolves to the component corresponding to this <attributeGroup>. Indirect circularity is also ruled out. That is, when QName resolution (Schema Document) (§3.15.3) 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>.

previous sub-section next sub-section3.7 Model Group Definitions

A model group definition associates a name and optional annotations with a Model Group (§2.2.3.1). 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.

Example
<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>
A minimal model group is defined and used by reference, first as the whole content model, then as one alternative in a choice.

3.7.1 The Model Group Definition Schema Component

The model group definition schema component has the following properties:

{name}
An NCName as defined by [XML-Namespaces].
{target namespace}
Either ·absent· or a namespace name, as defined in [XML-Namespaces].
{model group}
A model group.
{annotation}
Optional. An annotation.

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 (§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 (§2.2.3.1) for which the model group definition provides a name.

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

3.7.2 XML Representation of Model Group Definition Schema Components

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. The correspondences between the properties of the information item and properties of the component it corresponds to are as follows:

XML Representation Summarygroup Element Information Item

<group
  id = ID
  maxOccurs = (nonNegativeInteger | unbounded)  : 1
  minOccurs = nonNegativeInteger : 1
  name = NCName
  ref = QName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (all | choice | sequence)?)
</group>

If there is a name [attribute] (in which case the item will have <schema> or <redefine> as parent), then the item corresponds to a model group definition component with properties as follows:
Model Group Definition Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{name}The ·actual value· of the name [attribute]
{target namespace}The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent schema element information item.
{model group}A model group which is the {term} of a particle corresponding to the <all>, <choice> or <sequence> among the [children] (there must be one).
{annotation}The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.
Otherwise, the item will have a ref [attribute], in which case it corresponds to a particle component with properties as follows (unless minOccurs=maxOccurs=0, in which case the item corresponds to no component at all):
Particle Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{min occurs}The ·actual value· of the minOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
{max occurs}unbounded, if the maxOccurs [attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
{term}The {model group} of the model group definition ·resolved· to by the ·actual value· of the ref [attribute]

The name of this section is slightly misleading, in that the second, un-named, case above (with a ref and no name) is not really a named model group at all, but a reference to one. Also note that in the first (named) case above no reference is made to minOccurs or maxOccurs: this is because the schema for schemas does not allow them on the child of <group> when it is named. This in turn is because the {min occurs} and {max occurs} of the particles which refer to the definition are what count.

Given the constraints on its appearance in content models, an <all> should only occur as the only item in the [children] of a named model group definition or a content model: see Constraints on Model Group Schema Components (§3.8.6).

previous sub-section next sub-section3.8 Model Groups

When the [children] of element information items are not constrained to be empty or by reference to a simple type definition (Simple Type Definitions (§3.14)), the sequence of element information item [children] content may be specified in more detail with a model group. Because the {term} property of a particle can be a model group, and model groups contain particles, model groups can indirectly contain other model groups; the grammar for content models is therefore recursive.

Example
<xs:all>
 <xs:element ref="cats"/>
 <xs:element ref="dogs"/>
</xs:all>

<xs:sequence>
 <xs:choice>
  <xs:element ref="left"/>
  <xs:element ref="right"/>
 </xs:choice>
 <xs:element ref="landmark"/>
</xs:sequence>
XML representations for the three kinds of model group, the third nested inside the second.

3.8.1 The Model Group Schema Component

The model group schema component has the following properties:

{compositor}
One of all, choice or sequence.
{particles}
A list of particles
{annotation}
Optional. An annotation.

specifies a sequential (sequence), disjunctive (choice) or conjunctive (all) interpretation of the {particles}. This in turn determines whether the element information item [children] ·validated· by the model group must:

  • (sequence) correspond, in order, to the specified {particles};
  • (choice) corresponded to exactly one of the specified {particles};
  • (all) contain all and only exactly zero or one of each element specified in {particles}. The elements can occur in any order. In this case, to reduce implementation complexity, {particles} is restricted to contain local and top-level element declarations only, with {min occurs}=0 or 1, {max occurs}=1.

When two or more particles contained directly or indirectly in the {particles} of a model group have identically named element declarations as their {term}, the type definitions of those declarations must be the same. By 'indirectly' is meant particles within the {particles} of a group which is itself the {term} of a directly contained particle, and so on recursively.

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

3.8.2 XML Representation of Model Group Schema Components

The XML representation for a model group schema component is either an <all>, a <choice> or a <sequence> element information item. The correspondences between the properties of those information items and properties of the component they correspond to are as follows:

XML Representation Summaryall Element Information Item

<all
  id = ID
  maxOccurs = 1 : 1
  minOccurs = (0 | 1) : 1
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, element*)
</all>

<choice
  id = ID
  maxOccurs = (nonNegativeInteger | unbounded)  : 1
  minOccurs = nonNegativeInteger : 1
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (element | group | choice | sequence | any)*)
</choice>

<sequence
  id = ID
  maxOccurs = (nonNegativeInteger | unbounded)  : 1
  minOccurs = nonNegativeInteger : 1
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (element | group | choice | sequence | any)*)
</sequence>

Each of the above items corresponds to a particle containing a model group, with properties as follows (unless minOccurs=maxOccurs=0, in which case the item corresponds to no component at all):
Particle Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{min occurs}The ·actual value· of the minOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
{max occurs}unbounded, if the maxOccurs [attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
{term}A model group as given below:
Model Group Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{compositor}One of all, choice, sequence depending on the element information item.
{particles}A sequence of particles corresponding to all the <all>, <choice>, <sequence>, <any>, <group> or <element> items among the [children], in order.
{annotation}The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.

3.8.4 Model Group Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Element Sequence Valid
[Definition:]  Define a partition of a sequence as a sequence of sub-sequences, some or all of which may be empty, such that concatenating all the sub-sequences yields the original sequence.

For a sequence (possibly empty) of element information items to be locally ·valid· with respect to a model group the appropriate case among the following must be true:

1 If the {compositor} is sequence, then there must be a ·partition· of the sequence into n sub-sequences where n is the length of {particles} such that each of the sub-sequences in order is ·valid· with respect to the corresponding particle in the {particles} as defined in Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle) (§3.9.4).
2 If the {compositor} is choice, then there must be a particle among the {particles} such that the sequence is ·valid· with respect to that particle as defined in Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle) (§3.9.4).
3 If the {compositor} is all, then there must be a ·partition· of the sequence into n sub-sequences where n is the length of {particles} such that there is a one-to-one mapping between the sub-sequences and the {particles} where each sub-sequence is ·valid· with respect to the corresponding particle as defined in Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle) (§3.9.4).

Nothing in the above should be understood as ruling out groups whose {particles} is empty: although no sequence can be ·valid· with respect to such a group whose {compositor} is choice, the empty sequence is ·valid· with respect to empty groups whose {compositor} is sequence or all.

Note: The above definition is implicitly non-deterministic, and should not be taken as a recipé for implementations. Note in particular that when {compositor} is all, particles is restricted to a list of local and top-level element declarations (see Constraints on Model Group Schema Components (§3.8.6)). A much simpler implementation is possible than would arise from a literal interpretation of the definition above; informally, the content is ·valid· when each declared element occurs exactly once (or at most once, if {min occurs} is 0), and each is ·valid· with respect to its corresponding declaration. The elements can occur in arbitrary order.

3.8.6 Constraints on Model Group Schema Components

All model groups (see Model Groups (§3.8)) must satisfy the following constraints.

Schema Component Constraint: All Group Limited
When a model group has {compositor} all, then all of the following must be true:
1 It appears only as the value of one or both of the following properties:
1.1 the {model group} property of a model group definition.
1.2 the {term} property of a particle with {max occurs}=1which is part of a pair which constitutes the {content type} of a complex type definition.
2 The {max occurs} of all the particles in the {particles} of the group must be 0 or 1.
Schema Component Constraint: Element Declarations Consistent
If the {particles} contains, either directly, indirectly (that is, within the {particles} of a contained model group, recursively) or ·implicitly· two or more element declaration particles with the same {name} and {target namespace}, then all their type definitions must be the same top-level definition, that is, all of the following must be true:
1 all their {type definition}s must have a non-·absent· {name}.
2 all their {type definition}s must have the same {name}.
3 all their {type definition}s must have the same {target namespace}.

[Definition:]  A list of particles implicitly contains an element declaration if a member of the list contains that element declaration in its ·substitution group·.

Schema Component Constraint: Unique Particle Attribution
A content model must be formed such that during ·validation· of an element information item sequence, the particle component contained directly, indirectly or ·implicitly· therein with which to attempt to ·validate· each item in the sequence in turn can be uniquely determined without examining the content or attributes of that item, and without any information about the items in the remainder of the sequence.
Note: This constraint reconstructs for XML Schema the equivalent constraints of [XML 1.0 (Second Edition)] and SGML. Given the presence of element substitution groups and wildcards, the concise expression of this constraint is difficult, see Analysis of the Unique Particle Attribution Constraint (non-normative) (§H) for further discussion.

Since this constraint is expressed at the component level, it applies to content models whose origins (e.g. via type derivation and references to named model groups) are no longer evident. So particles at different points in the content model are always distinct from one another, even if they originated from the same named model group.

Note: Because locally-scoped element declarations may or may not have a {target namespace}, the scope of declarations is not relevant to enforcing either of the two preceding constraints.

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

Schema Component Constraint: Effective Total Range (all and sequence)
The effective total range of a particle whose {term} is a group whose {compositor} is all or sequence is a pair of minimum and maximum, as follows:
minimum
The product of the particle's {min occurs} and the sum of the {min occurs} of every wildcard or element declaration particle in the group's {particles} and the minimum part of the effective total range of each of the group particles in the group's {particles} (or 0 if there are no {particles}).
maximum
unbounded if the {max occurs} of any wildcard or element declaration particle in the group's {particles} or the maximum part of the effective total range of any of the group particles in the group's {particles} is unbounded, or if any of those is non-zero and the {max occurs} of the particle itself is unbounded, otherwise the product of the particle's {max occurs} and the sum of the {max occurs} of every wildcard or element declaration particle in the group's {particles} and the maximum part of the effective total range of each of the group particles in the group's {particles} (or 0 if there are no {particles}).
Schema Component Constraint: Effective Total Range (choice)
The effective total range of a particle whose {term} is a group whose {compositor} is choice is a pair of minimum and maximum, as follows:
minimum
The product of the particle's {min occurs} and the minimum of the {min occurs} of every wildcard or element declaration particle in the group's {particles} and the minimum part of the effective total range of each of the group particles in the group's {particles} (or 0 if there are no {particles}).
maximum
unbounded if the {max occurs} of any wildcard or element declaration particle in the group's {particles} or the maximum part of the effective total range of any of the group particles in the group's {particles} is unbounded, or if any of those is non-zero and the {max occurs} of the particle itself is unbounded, otherwise the product of the particle's {max occurs} and the maximum of the {max occurs} of every wildcard or element declaration particle in the group's {particles} and the maximum part of the effective total range of each of the group particles in the group's {particles} (or 0 if there are no {particles}).

previous sub-section next sub-section3.9 Particles

As described in Model Groups (§3.8), particles contribute to the definition of content models.

Example
<xs:element ref="egg" minOccurs="12" maxOccurs="12"/>

<xs:group ref="omelette" minOccurs="0"/>

<xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
     
XML representations which all involve particles, illustrating some of the possibilities for controlling occurrence.

3.9.1 The Particle Schema Component

The particle schema component has the following properties:

{min occurs}
A non-negative integer.
{max occurs}
Either a non-negative integer or unbounded.
{term}
One of a model group, a wildcard, or an element declaration.

In general, multiple element information item [children], possibly with intervening character [children] if the content type is mixed, can be ·validated· with respect to a single particle. When the {term} is an element declaration or wildcard, {min occurs} determines the minimum number of such element [children] that can occur. The number of such children must be greater than or equal to {min occurs}. If {min occurs} is 0, then occurrence of such children is optional.

Again, when the {term} is an element declaration or wildcard, the number of such element [children] must be less than or equal to any numeric specification of {max occurs}; if {max occurs} is unbounded, then there is no upper bound on the number of such children.

When the {term} is a model group, the permitted occurrence range is determined by a combination of {min occurs} and {max occurs} and the occurrence ranges of the {term}'s {particles}.

3.9.2 XML Representation of Particle Components

Particles correspond to all three elements (<element> not immediately within <schema>, <group> not immediately within <schema> and <any>) which allow minOccurs and maxOccurs attributes. These in turn correspond to two components in each case, a particle and its {term}. The appropriate mapping is described in XML Representation of Element Declaration Schema Components (§3.3.2), XML Representation of Model Group Schema Components (§3.8.2) and XML Representation of Wildcard Schema Components (§3.10.2) respectively.

3.9.4 Particle Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle)
For a sequence (possibly empty) of element information items to be locally ·valid· with respect to a particle the appropriate case among the following must be true:
1 If the {term} is a wildcard, then all of the following must be true:
1.1 The length of the sequence must be greater than or equal to the {min occurs}.
1.2 If {max occurs} is a number, the length of the sequence must be less than or equal to the {max occurs}.
1.3 Each element information item in the sequence must be ·valid· with respect to the wildcard as defined by Item Valid (Wildcard) (§3.10.4).
2 If the {term} is an element declaration, then all of the following must be true:
2.1 The length of the sequence must be greater than or equal to the {min occurs}.
2.2 If {max occurs} is a number, the length of the sequence must be less than or equal to the {max occurs}.
2.3 For each element information item in the sequence one of the following must be true:
2.3.1 The element declaration is local (i.e. its {scope} must not be global), its {abstract} is false, the element information item's [namespace name] is identical to the element declaration's {target namespace} (where an ·absent· {target namespace} is taken to be identical to a [namespace name] with no value) and the element information item's [local name] matches the element declaration's {name}.

In this case the element declaration is the ·context-determined declaration· for the element information item with respect to Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (§3.3.4) and Assessment Outcome (Element) (§3.3.5).

2.3.2 The element declaration is top-level (i.e. its {scope} is global), {abstract} is false, the element information item's [namespace name] is identical to the element declaration's {target namespace} (where an ·absent· {target namespace} is taken to be identical to a [namespace name] with no value) and the element information item's [local name] matches the element declaration's {name}.

In this case the element declaration is the ·context-determined declaration· for the element information item with respect to Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (§3.3.4) and Assessment Outcome (Element) (§3.3.5).

2.3.3 The element declaration is top-level (i.e. its {scope} is global), its {disallowed substitutions} does not contain substitution, the [local ] and [namespace name] of the element information item resolve to an element declaration, as defined in QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4) -- [Definition:]  call this declaration the substituting declaration and the ·substituting declaration· together with the particle's element declaration's {disallowed substitutions} is validly substitutable for the particle's element declaration as defined in Substitution Group OK (Transitive) (§3.3.6).

In this case the ·substituting declaration· is the ·context-determined declaration· for the element information item with respect to Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (§3.3.4) and Assessment Outcome (Element) (§3.3.5).

3 If the {term} is a model group, then all of the following must be true:
3.1 There is a ·partition· of the sequence into n sub-sequences such that n is greater than or equal to {min occurs}.
3.2 If {max occurs} is a number, n must be less than or equal to {max occurs}.
3.3 Each sub-sequence in the ·partition· is ·valid· with respect to that model group as defined in Element Sequence Valid (§3.8.4).
Note: Clauses clause 1 and clause 2.3.3 do not interact: an element information item validatable by a declaration with a substitution group head in a different namespace is not validatable by a wildcard which accepts the head's namespace but not its own.

3.9.6 Constraints on Particle Schema Components

All particles (see Particles (§3.9)) must satisfy the following constraints.

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

Schema Component Constraint: Particle Valid (Extension)
[Definition:]  For a particle (call it E, for extension) to be a valid extension of another particle (call it B, for base) one of the following must be true:
1 They are the same particle.
2 E's {min occurs}={max occurs}=1 and its {term} is a sequence group whose {particles}' first member is a particle all of whose properties, recursively, are identical to those of B, with the exception of {annotation} properties.

The approach to defining a type by restricting another type definition set out here is designed to ensure that types defined in this way are guaranteed to be a subset of the type they restrict. This is accomplished by requiring a clear mapping between the components of the base type definition and the restricting type definition. Permissible mappings are set out below via a set of recursive definitions, bottoming out in the obvious cases, e.g. where an (restricted) element declaration corresponds to another (base) element declaration with the same name and type but the same or wider range of occurrence.

Note: The structural correspondence approach to guaranteeing the subset relation set out here is necessarily verbose, but has the advantage of being checkable in a straightforward way. The working group solicits feedback on how difficult this is in practice, and on whether other approaches are found to be viable.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Valid (Restriction)
[Definition:]  For a particle (call it R, for restriction) to be a valid restriction of another particle (call it B, for base) one of the following must be true:
1 They are the same particle.
2 depending on the kind of particle, per the table below, with the qualifications that all of the following must be true:
2.1 Any top-level element declaration particle (in R or B) which is the {substitution group affiliation} of one or more other element declarations and whose ·substitution group· contains at least one element declaration other than itself is treated as if it were a choice group whose {min occurs} and {max occurs} are those of the particle, and whose {particles} consists of one particle with {min occurs} and {max occurs} of 1 for each of the declarations in its ·substitution group·.
2.2 Any pointless occurrences of <sequence>, <choice> or <all> are ignored, where pointlessness is understood as follows:
<sequence>
One of the following must be true:
2.2.1 {particles} is empty.
2.2.2 All of the following must be true:
2.2.2.1 The particle within which this <sequence> appears has {max occurs} and {min occurs} of 1.
2.2.2.2 One of the following must be true:
2.2.2.2.1 The <sequence>'s {particles} has only one member.
2.2.2.2.2 The particle within which this <sequence> appears is itself among the {particles} of a <sequence>.
<all>
One of the following must be true:
2.2.1 {particles} is empty.
2.2.2 {particles} has only one member.
<choice>
One of the following must be true:
2.2.1 {particles} is empty and the particle within which this <choice> appears has {min occurs} of 0.
2.2.2 All of the following must be true:
2.2.2.1 The particle within which this <choice> appears has {max occurs} and {min occurs} of 1.
2.2.2.2 One of the following must be true:
2.2.2.2.1 The <choice>'s {particles} has only one member.
2.2.2.2.2 The particle within which this <choice> appears is itself among the {particles} of a <choice>.
Base Particle
eltanyallchoicesequence
Derived ParticleeltNameAnd- TypeOKNSCompatRecurse- AsIfGroupRecurse- AsIfGroupRecurseAs- IfGroup
anyForbiddenNSSubsetForbiddenForbiddenForbidden
allForbiddenNSRecurse- CheckCardinalityRecurseForbiddenForbidden
choiceForbiddenNSRecurse- CheckCardinalityForbiddenRecurseLaxForbidden
seq- uenceForbiddenNSRecurse- CheckCardinalityRecurse- UnorderedMapAndSumRecurse
Schema Component Constraint: Occurrence Range OK
For a particle's occurrence range to be a valid restriction of another's occurrence range all of the following must be true:
1 Its {min occurs} is greater than or equal to the other's {min occurs}.
2 one of the following must be true:
2.1 The other's {max occurs} is unbounded.
2.2 Both {max occurs} are numbers, and the particle's is less than or equal to the other's.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Restriction OK (Elt:Elt -- NameAndTypeOK)
For an element declaration particle to be a ·valid restriction· of another element declaration particle all of the following must be true:
1 The declarations' {name}s and {target namespace}s are the same.
2 R's occurrence range is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
3 One of the following must be true:
3.1 Both B's declaration's {scope} and R's declaration's {scope} are global.
3.2 All of the following must be true:
3.2.1 Either B's {nillable} is true or R's {nillable} is false.
3.2.2 either B's declaration's {value constraint} is absent, or is not fixed, or R's declaration's {value constraint} is fixed with the same value.
3.2.3 R's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions} is a subset of B's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions}, if any.
3.2.4 R's declaration's {disallowed substitutions} is a superset of B's declaration's {disallowed substitutions}.
3.2.5 R's {type definition} is validly derived given {extension, list, union} from B's {type definition} as defined by Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) or Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6), as appropriate.
Note: The above constraint on {type definition} means that in deriving a type by restriction, any contained type definitions must themselves be explicitly derived by restriction from the corresponding type definitions in the base definition, or be one of the member types of a corresponding union..
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (Elt:Any -- NSCompat)
For an element declaration particle to be a ·valid restriction· of a wildcard particle all of the following must be true:
1 The element declaration's {target namespace} is ·valid· with respect to the wildcard's {namespace constraint} as defined by Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4).
2 R's occurrence range is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (Elt:All/Choice/Sequence -- RecurseAsIfGroup)
For an element declaration particle to be a ·valid restriction· of a group particle (all, choice or sequence) a group particle of the variety corresponding to B's, with {min occurs} and {max occurs} of 1 and with {particles} consisting of a single particle the same as the element declaration must be a ·valid restriction· of the group as defined by Particle Derivation OK (All:All,Sequence:Sequence -- Recurse) (§3.9.6), Particle Derivation OK (Choice:Choice -- RecurseLax) (§3.9.6) or Particle Derivation OK (All:All,Sequence:Sequence -- Recurse) (§3.9.6), depending on whether the group is all, choice or sequence.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (Any:Any -- NSSubset)
For a wildcard particle to be a ·valid restriction· of another wildcard particle all of the following must be true:
1 R's occurrence range must be a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
2 R's {namespace constraint} must be an intensional subset of B's {namespace constraint} as defined by Wildcard Subset (§3.10.6).
3 Unless B is the content model wildcard of the ·ur-type definition·, R's {process contents} must be identical to or stronger than B's {process contents}, where strict is stronger than lax is stronger than skip.

Note:

The exception to the third clause above for derivations from the
·ur-type definition· is necessary as its wildcards have a {process contents} of lax, so without this exception, no use of wildcards with {process contents} of skip would be possible.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (All/Choice/Sequence:Any -- NSRecurseCheckCardinality)
For a group particle to be a ·valid restriction· of a wildcard particle all of the following must be true:
1 Every member of the {particles} of the group is a ·valid restriction· of the wildcard as defined by Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6).
2 The effective total range of the group, as defined by Effective Total Range (all and sequence) (§3.8.6) (if the group is all or sequence) or Effective Total Range (choice) (§3.8.6) (if it is choice) is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (All:All,Sequence:Sequence -- Recurse)
For an all or sequence group particle to be a ·valid restriction· of another group particle with the same {compositor} all of the following must be true:
1 R's occurrence range is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
2 There is a complete ·order-preserving· functional mapping from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles in the {particles} of B such that all of the following must be true:
2.1 Each particle in the {particles} of R is a ·valid restriction· of the particle in the {particles} of B it maps to as defined by Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6).
2.2 All particles in the {particles} of B which are not mapped to by any particle in the {particles} of R are ·emptiable· as defined by Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6).
Note: Although the ·validation· semantics of an all group does not depend on the order of its particles, derived all groups are required to match the order of their base in order to simplify checking that the derivation is OK.
[Definition:]  A complete functional mapping is order-preserving if each particle r in the domain R maps to a particle b in the range B which follows (not necessarily immediately) the particle in the range B mapped to by the predecessor of r, if any, where "predecessor" and "follows" are defined with respect to the order of the lists which constitute R and B.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (Choice:Choice -- RecurseLax)
For a choice group particle to be a ·valid restriction· of another choice group particle all of the following must be true:
1 R's occurrence range is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6);
2 There is a complete ·order-preserving· functional mapping from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles in the {particles} of B such that each particle in the {particles} of R is a ·valid restriction· of the particle in the {particles} of B it maps to as defined by Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6).
Note: Although the ·validation· semantics of a choice group does not depend on the order of its particles, derived choice groups are required to match the order of their base in order to simplify checking that the derivation is OK.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (Sequence:All -- RecurseUnordered)
For a sequence group particle to be a ·valid restriction· of an all group particle all of the following must be true:
1 R's occurrence range is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
2 There is a complete functional mapping from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles in the {particles} of B such that all of the following must be true:
2.1 No particle in the {particles} of B is mapped to by more than one of the particles in the {particles} of R;
2.2 Each particle in the {particles} of R is a ·valid restriction· of the particle in the {particles} of B it maps to as defined by Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6);
2.3 All particles in the {particles} of B which are not mapped to by any particle in the {particles} of R are ·emptiable· as defined by Particle Emptiable (§3.9.6).
Note: Although this clause allows reordering, because of the limits on the contents of all groups the checking process can still be deterministic.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Derivation OK (Sequence:Choice -- MapAndSum)
For a sequence group particle to be a ·valid restriction· of a choice group particle all of the following must be true:
1 There is a complete functional mapping from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles in the {particles} of B such that each particle in the {particles} of R is a ·valid restriction· of the particle in the {particles} of B it maps to as defined by Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6).
2 The pair consisting of the product of the {min occurs} of R and the length of its {particles} and unbounded if {max occurs} is unbounded otherwise the product of the {max occurs} of R and the length of its {particles} is a valid restriction of B's occurrence range as defined by Occurrence Range OK (§3.9.6).
Note: This clause is in principle more restrictive than absolutely necessary, but in practice will cover all the likely cases, and is much easier to specify than the fully general version.
Note: This case allows the "unfolding" of iterated disjunctions into sequences. It may be particularly useful when the disjunction is an implicit one arising from the use of substitution groups.
Schema Component Constraint: Particle Emptiable
[Definition:]  For a particle to be emptiable one of the following must be true:
1 Its {min occurs} is 0.
2 Its {term} is a group and the minimum part of the effective total range of that group, as defined by Effective Total Range (all and sequence) (§3.8.6) (if the group is all or sequence) or Effective Total Range (choice) (§3.8.6) (if it is choice), is 0.

previous sub-section next sub-section3.10 Wildcards

In order to exploit the full potential for extensibility offered by XML plus namespaces, more provision is needed than DTDs allow for targeted flexibility in content models and attribute declarations. A wildcard provides for ·validation· of attribute and element information items dependent on their namespace name, but independently of their local name.

Example
<xs:any processContents="skip"/>

<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>

<xs:any namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"/>

<xs:any namespace="##targetNamespace"/>

<xs:anyAttribute namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"/>
XML representations of the four basic types of wildcard, plus one attribute wildcard.

3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component

The wildcard schema component has the following properties:

{namespace constraint}
One of any; a pair of not and a namespace name or ·absent·; or a set whose members are either namespace names or ·absent·.
{process contents}
One of skip, lax or strict.
{annotation}
Optional. An annotation.

{namespace constraint} provides for ·validation· of attribute and element items that:

  1. (any) have any namespace or are not namespace-qualified;
  2. (not and a namespace name) are namespace-qualified with a namespace other than the specified namespace name;
  3. (not and ·absent·) are namespace-qualified;
  4. (a set whose members are either namespace names or ·absent·) have any of the specified namespaces and/or, if ·absent· is included in the set, are unqualified.

{process contents} controls the impact on ·assessment· of the information items allowed by wildcards, as follows:

strict
There must be a top-level declaration for the item available, or the item must have an xsi:type, and the item must be ·valid· as appropriate.
skip
No constraints at all: the item must simply be well-formed XML.
lax
If the item has a uniquely determined declaration available, it must be ·valid· with respect to that definition, that is, ·validate· if you can, don't worry if you can't.

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

3.10.2 XML Representation of Wildcard Schema Components

The XML representation for a wildcard schema component is an <any> or <anyAttribute> element information item. The correspondences between the properties of an <any> information item and properties of the components it corresponds to are as follows (see <complexType> and <attributeGroup> for the correspondences for <anyAttribute>):

XML Representation Summaryany Element Information Item

<any
  id = ID
  maxOccurs = (nonNegativeInteger | unbounded)  : 1
  minOccurs = nonNegativeInteger : 1
  namespace = ((##any | ##other) | List of (anyURI | (##targetNamespace | ##local)) )  : ##any
  processContents = (lax | skip | strict) : strict
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?)
</any>

A particle containing a wildcard, with properties as follows (unless minOccurs=maxOccurs=0, in which case the item corresponds to no component at all):
Particle Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{min occurs}The ·actual value· of the minOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
{max occurs}unbounded, if the maxOccurs [attribute] equals unbounded, otherwise the ·actual value· of the maxOccurs [attribute], if present, otherwise 1.
{term}A wildcard as given below:
Wildcard Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{namespace constraint}Dependent on the ·actual value· of the namespace [attribute]: if absent, then any, otherwise as follows:
##any
any
##other
a pair of not and the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the <schema> ancestor element information item if present, otherwise ·absent·.
otherwise
a set whose members are namespace names corresponding to the space-delimited substrings of the string, except
1 if one such substring is ##targetNamespace, the corresponding member is the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the <schema> ancestor element information item if present, otherwise ·absent·.
2 if one such substring is ##local, the corresponding member is ·absent·.
{process contents}The ·actual value· of the processContents [attribute], if present, otherwise strict.
{annotation}The annotation corresponding to the <annotation> element information item in the [children], if present, otherwise ·absent·.

Wildcards are subject to the same ambiguity constraints (Unique Particle Attribution (§3.8.6)) as other content model particles: If an instance element could match either an explicit particle and a wildcard, or one of two wildcards, within the content model of a type, that model is in error.

3.10.4 Wildcard Validation Rules

Validation Rule: Item Valid (Wildcard)
For an element or attribute information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to a wildcard constraint its [namespace name] must be ·valid· with respect to the wildcard constraint, as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4).

When this constraint applies the appropriate case among the following must be true:

Validation Rule: Wildcard allows Namespace Name
For a value which is either a namespace name or ·absent· to be ·valid· with respect to a wildcard constraint (the value of a {namespace constraint}) one of the following must be true:
1 The constraint must be any.
2 All of the following must be true:
2.1 The constraint is a pair of not and a namespace name or ·absent· ([Definition:]  call this the namespace test).
2.2 The value must not be identical to the ·namespace test·.
2.3 The value must not be ·absent·.
3 The constraint is a set, and the value is identical to one of the members of the set.

3.10.6 Constraints on Wildcard Schema Components

All wildcards (see Wildcards (§3.10)) must satisfy the following constraint.

The following constraints define a relation appealed to elsewhere in this specification.

Schema Component Constraint: Wildcard Subset
For a namespace constraint (call it sub) to be an intensional subset of another namespace constraint (call it super) one of the following must be true:
1 super must be any.
3 All of the following must be true:
3.1 sub must be a set whose members are either namespace names or ·absent·.
3.2 One of the following must be true:
3.2.1 super must be the same set or a superset thereof.
3.2.2 super must be a pair of not and a value (a namespace name or ·absent·) and neither that value nor ·absent· must be in sub's set.
Schema Component Constraint: Attribute Wildcard Union
For a wildcard's {namespace constraint} value to be the intensional union of two other such values (call them O1 and O2): the appropriate case among the following must be true:
1 If O1 and O2 are the same value, then that value must be the value.
2 If either O1 or O2 is any, then any must be the value.
3 If both O1 and O2 are sets of (namespace names or ·absent·), then the union of those sets must be the value.
4 If the two are negations of different values (namespace names or ·absent·), then a pair of not and ·absent· must be the value.
5 If either O1 or O2 is a pair of not and a namespace name and the other is a set of (namespace names or ·absent·) (call this set S), then The appropriate case among the following must be true:
5.1 If the set S includes both the negated namespace name and ·absent·, then any must be the value.
5.2 If the set S includes the negated namespace name but not ·absent·, then a pair of not and ·absent· must be the value.
5.3 If the set S includes ·absent· but not the negated namespace name, then the union is not expressible.
5.4 If the set S does not include either the negated namespace name or ·absent·, then whichever of O1 or O2 is a pair of not and a namespace name must be the value.
6 If either O1 or O2 is a pair of not and ·absent· and the other is a set of (namespace names or ·absent·) (again, call this set S), then The appropriate case among the following must be true:
6.1 If the set S includes ·absent·, then any must be the value.
6.2 If the set S does not include ·absent·, then a pair of not and ·absent· must be the value.
In the case where there are more than two values, the intensional union is determined by identifying the intensional union of two of the values as above, then the intensional union of that value with the third (providing the first union was expressible), and so on as required.
Schema Component Constraint: Attribute Wildcard Intersection
For a wildcard's {namespace constraint} value to be the intensional intersection of two other such values (call them O1 and O2): the appropriate case among the following must be true:
1 If O1 and O2 are the same value, then that value must be the value.
2 If either O1 or O2 is any, then the other must be the value.
3 If either O1 or O2 is a pair of not and a value (a namespace name or ·absent·) and the other is a set of (namespace names or ·absent·), then that set, minus the negated value if it was in the set, minus ·absent· if it was in the set, must be the value.
4 If both O1 and O2 are sets of (namespace names or ·absent·), then the intersection of those sets must be the value.
5 If the two are negations of different namespace names, then the intersection is not expressible.
6 If the one is a negation of a namespace name and the other is a negation of ·absent·, then the one which is the negation of a namespace name must be the value.
In the case where there are more than two values, the intensional intersection is determined by identifying the intensional intersection of two of the values as above, then the intensional intersection of that value with the third (providing the first intersection was expressible), and so on as required.

previous sub-section next sub-section3.11 Identity-constraint Definitions

Identity-constraint definition components provide for uniqueness and reference constraints with respect to the contents of multiple elements and attributes.

Example
<xs:key name="fullName">
 <xs:selector xpath=".//person"/>
 <xs:field xpath="forename"/>
 <xs:field xpath="surname"/>
</xs:key>

<xs:keyref name="personRef" refer="fullName">
 <xs:selector xpath=".//personPointer"/>
 <xs:field xpath="@first"/>
 <xs:field xpath="@last"/>
</xs:keyref>

<xs:unique name="nearlyID">
 <xs:selector xpath=".//*"/>
 <xs:field xpath="@id"/>
</xs:unique>
XML representations for the three kinds of identity-constraint definitions.

3.11.1 The Identity-constraint Definition Schema Component

The identity-constraint definition schema component has the following properties:

{name}
An NCName as defined by [XML-Namespaces].
{target namespace}
Either ·absent· or a namespace name, as defined in [XML-Namespaces].
{identity-constraint category}
One of key, keyref or unique.
{selector}
A restricted XPath ([XPath]) expression.
{fields}
A non-empty list of restricted XPath ([XPath]) expressions.
{referenced key}
Required if {identity-constraint category} is keyref, forbidden otherwise. An identity-constraint definition with {identity-constraint category} equal to key or unique.
{annotation}
Optional. A set of annotations.

Identity-constraint definitions are identified by their {name} and {target namespace}; Identity-constraint definition identities must be unique within an ·XML Schema·. See References to schema components across namespaces (§4.2.3) for the use of component identifiers when importing one schema into another.

Informally, {identity-constraint category} identifies the Identity-constraint definition as playing one of three roles:

  • (unique) the Identity-constraint definition asserts uniqueness, with respect to the content identified by {selector}, of the tuples resulting from evaluation of the {fields} XPath expression(s).
  • (key) the Identity-constraint definition asserts uniqueness as for unique. key further asserts that all selected content actually has such tuples.
  • (keyref) the Identity-constraint definition asserts a correspondence, with respect to the content identified by {selector}, of the tuples resulting from evaluation of the {fields} XPath expression(s), with those of the {referenced key}.

These constraints are specified along side the specification of types for the attributes and elements involved, i.e. something declared as of type integer may also serve as a key. Each constraint declaration has a name, which exists in a single symbol space for constraints. The equality and inequality conditions appealed to in checking these constraints apply to the value of the fields selected, so that for example 3.0 and 3 would be conflicting keys if they were both number, but non-conflicting if they were both strings, or one was a string and one a number. Values of differing type can only be equal if one type is derived from the other, and the value is in the value space of both.

Overall the augmentations to XML's ID/IDREF mechanism are:

  • Functioning as a part of an identity-constraint is in addition to, not instead of, having a type;
  • Not just attribute values, but also element content and combinations of values and content can be declared to be unique;
  • Identity-constraints are specified to hold within the scope of particular elements;
  • (Combinations of) attribute values and/or element content can be declared to be keys, that is, not only unique, but always present and non-nillable;
  • The comparison between keyref {fields} and key or unique {fields} is by value equality, not by string equality.

{selector} specifies a restricted XPath ([XPath]) expression relative to instances of the element being declared. This must identify a node set of subordinate elements (i.e. contained within the declared element) to which the constraint applies.

{fields} specifies XPath expressions relative to each element selected by a {selector}. This must identify a single node (element or attribute) whose content or value, which must be of a simple type, is used in the constraint. It is possible to specify an ordered list of {fields}s, to cater to multi-field keys, keyrefs, and uniqueness constraints.

In order to reduce the burden on implementers, in particular implementers of streaming processors, only restricted subsets of XPath expressions are allowed in {selector} and {fields}. The details are given in Constraints on Identity-constraint Definition Schema Components (§3.11.6).

Note: Provision for multi-field keys etc. goes beyond what is supported by xsl:key.

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

3.11.2 XML Representation of Identity-constraint Definition Schema Components

The XML representation for an identity-constraint definition schema component is either a <key>, a <keyref> or a <unique> element information item. The correspondences between the properties of those information items and properties of the component they correspond to are as follows:

XML Representation Summaryunique Element Information Item

<unique
  id = ID
  name = NCName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (selector, field+))
</unique>

<key
  id = ID
  name = NCName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (selector, field+))
</key>

<keyref
  id = ID
  name = NCName
  refer = QName
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?, (selector, field+))
</keyref>

<selector
  id = ID
  xpath = a subset of XPath expression, see below
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?)
</selector>

<field
  id = ID
  xpath = a subset of XPath expression, see below
  {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
  Content: (annotation?)
</field>

Identity-constraint Definition Schema Component
PropertyRepresentation
{name}The ·actual value· of the name [attribute]
{target namespace}The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the parent schema element information item.
{identity-constraint category}One of key, keyref or unique, depending on the item.
{selector}A restricted XPath expression corresponding to the ·actual value· of the xpath [attribute] of the <selector> element information item among the [children]
{fields}A sequence of XPath express