2210 2005-09-14 19:13:49 +0000 R-218: Clarification required for complexContent extending simpleContent 2012-12-04 00:54:15 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.0 only All Windows 3.1 NEW decided P2 normal --- 4275 1 sandygao David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6230 0 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:13:49 +0000 Consider <complexType name="derived" mixed="false"> <complexContent mixed="false"> <extension base="base"/> </complexContent> </complexType> where "base" is a complex type whose {content type} is a simple type definition. Then according to structure 3.4.2, "derived" has the same content type as base, which is a simple type definition. But it specified <complexContent> explicitly, and mixed = false. This seems confusing. And if mixed was true on <complexType> and <complexContent> then the rule actually says that "derived" has a content of a sequence of an empty sequence, following the particle from "base". But "base" doesn't have a particle. (Rules from 3.4.6 says this is invalid, but those are at the component level. Here we are talking about the mapping.) IMO, <complexContent> shouldn't be allowed to extend a complex type with simple content. That is, change bullet 1 of the constraint "Complex Type Definition Representation OK" [1] to 1 If the <complexContent> alternative is chosen, then all of the following must be true: 1.1 The type definition resolved to by the actual value of the base [attribute] must be a complex type definition; 1.2 If the <extension> alternative is also chosen, then the type definition resolved to by the actual value of the base [attribute] must not be a complex type definition whose {content type} is a simple type definition; [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/09/xmlschema-1/structures-with- errata.html#src-ct See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0048.html 6231 1 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:13:59 +0000 HT proposed a resolution to R-218 which was discussed at the 2003-10-10 telecon. Proposed errata text approved (but the WG allows him to edit the text to express it more formally). 6657 2 sandygao 2005-10-06 17:59:13 +0000 Link to the original message should be: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0048.html 13795 3 sandygao 2007-01-24 14:58:15 +0000 Link to the approved proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Sep/0070.html