Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xmlschema-dev Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - Re: complexContent extending complexType with simpleContent: why not? [Thread Next] Re: complexContent extending complexType with simpleContent: why not?To: Sandy Gao <sandygao@--.---.---> Date: 2/3/2006 1:21:00 AM
On Feb 3, 2006, at 6:53 AM, Sandy Gao wrote:
>
> > Now, it is certainly the case that ExtendedType's content is
> actually
> > simple, not complex, ...
>
> If you look at the mapping rules for complex types [1] ({content
> type} for <complexContent> with <extension>), it's clear that the
> {content type} of "ExtendedType" is element-only and a particle
> (clause 3.2.3).
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#declare-type
Hmm, that's not clear to me. Isn't the effective content empty due
to clause 2.1.1 (and 2.1.5)? That would make the content type the
base type by clause 3.2.1.
joe
From ralf.lammel@m... Fri Feb 03 17:22:09 2006
Re | ||||||
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | Mobile | Full Site | |||
|
