4680 2007-06-21 03:43:07 +0000 Microsoft Element test elemZ027_c 2010-03-26 15:29:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Test Suite Microsoft tests 2006-11-06 PC Windows 2000 NEW disputedTest P2 normal --- 1 mrglavas ht David_E3 public-xml-schema-testsuite oldest_to_newest 15493 0 mrglavas 2007-06-21 03:43:07 +0000 The schema for the Microsoft Element test (group="elemZ027_c";name="elemZ027_c") is described as invalid in the metadata. I think that this schema is actually valid. From my reading of the spec [1] and this post to the xmlschema-dev list [2] I believe that the block="substitution" on element "b" only blocks "a" from being a member of "b"'s substitution group. As such the element "d" specified in the base type can be substituted by "c", "b" and "a" which means the derived type is valid. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-equiv-derived-ok-rec [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2007Jan/0068.html 15495 1 mike 2007-06-21 11:29:47 +0000 I fear you are right, despite the fact that the spec here is clearly bizarre. I rather like MSMcQ's attempt to find a rationale: "Er. Ah. Those who favored the current design argued that it would be more useful this way". Actually, I am not sure I have ever seen block="substitution" used in a real live schema; it appears to be pretty useless either way. But conformance often means doing things that are patently bonkers... 31425 2 ht 2010-02-03 15:21:52 +0000 Looks like expected should just be flipped