Re: Possible schema validation issue in 3.0b3

• From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
• Date: 02 May 2000 09:10:34 +0100
• To: "Falk, Alexander" <falk@icon.at>
• Cc: "'AndyPhi@reciprocal.com'" <AndyPhi@reciprocal.com>, "Gavrielov, Vladislav" <gavrielov@icon.at>, "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
• Message-ID: <f5bitwxgyo5.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

[Note, questions which are strictly about the spec. should be directed 
to www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org]
"Falk, Alexander" <falk@icon.at> writes:
> Interesting question...
> 
> I've looked at both the primer and the (normative) schema for schemas and DTD
> for schemas. The first seems to indicate that 'xsd:list' should be used, but
> the normative meta-schema and DTD clearly say that it should be 'list' all by
> itself.
> 
> Maybe someone else can shed some authoritative light on this: if the
> schema-namespace is defined with prefix xsd, and we have the following
> simpleType definition
> 
> ??????? <xsd:simpleType base="PermissionType" derivedBy="?????"/>
> 
> should the derivedBy be 'list' (like the meta-schema and DTD say), or should
> it be 'xsd:list' (like the primer says)?
My opinion is that the primer is the mistaken one here.  The
'derivedBy' attribute has an enumerated type, with values 'extension', 
'list' and 'restriction'.  It's not a reference, which would have type 
QName.
ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: https://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 04:10:56 UTC