![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xmlschema-dev Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - xsd:simpletype or >Thread Next - Re: xsd:simpletype or Re: xsd:simpletype or To: Dan Vint <dvint@-----.---> Date: 1/12/2006 9:54:00 AM
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dan Vint writes:
> Can someone explain these two constructs and any advantage or
> disadvantage to using one over the other?
As such they have the same validation semantics. The extension
version can include attribute declarations.
> I see that one seems to allow extension where the other limits me to
> restriction, but I believe even with the extension definition, I could
> not extend my Type by adding additional attributes.
^^^
Typo? You can extend _either_ of these types to get a complex type
defn with simple content and attributes.
ht
=2D --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@i...
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged sp=
am]
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDxidLkjnJixAXWBoRAtBdAJ4r8EPKu4YcSDG33agEdvpXjwpNigCdEsy1
I1IaVIMcHcf0gWxhPbiKWco=
=Mr/s
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From george@o... Thu Jan 12 09:58:44 2006
Received: from maggie.w3.o | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | |||||
|
