14442 2011-10-12 22:32:33 +0000 over013 - Overriding a complex type with a simple type 2011-11-29 21:48:29 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Test Suite Saxon tests 2006-11-06 PC All CLOSED WORKSFORME needsAgreement P2 normal XSD 1.1 PR 1 mike cmsmcq David_E3 public-xml-schema-testsuite oldest_to_newest 58158 0 mike 2011-10-12 22:32:33 +0000 Test over013 has this: <xs:override schemaLocation="over012a.xsd"> <xs:simpleType name="structuredDate"> <xs:restriction base="xs:date"/> </xs:simpleType> </xs:override> overriding this: <xs:schema ...> <xs:element name="doc"> ... </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="structuredDate"> <xs:sequence> ... </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:schema> and has an expected result of invalid, on the grounds that a simpleType cannot override a complexType. In fact, following the rules in the spec more closely, there appears to be no such error condition. Instead the simpleType simply fails to override anything, and is therefore ignored. Can the WG confirm that this is the intent of the specification? 59620 1 David_E3 2011-11-04 15:51:50 +0000 After study, WG notes that the behavior seems OK. Warnings might be issued by an agressive implementation, but are not required. The behavior of doing nothing is expected. In any case, the behavior of the stylesheet is within the boundaries of what is defined. Further, the situation should not result in indication of an error in the schema. MSM: if we made any change here, I fear we'd have to go back to last call. MSM: I do think MK is right to ask: was that really what we intended? But I think that it's too late to make design changes at that level. We either go to Rec with essentially what we've got, or we go out of business without a Rec. Resolved: mark as WORKSFORME but give Michael Kay a chance to redirect. 59624 2 mike 2011-11-04 16:25:32 +0000 That's the decision I was expecting, and it seems prudent given the stage we're at. 60644 3 mike 2011-11-29 21:48:29 +0000 I have changed the expected result of the test to "valid"