Hi George,

thanks a million, you saved my day :-) 

I've read that part of the spec so many times and never really =
understood it. Now I did!

Thanks again,
 _         __                _  _
//\ndreas.[|-bbert-[]/arroum(a)[|\|okia.com
           `-        `
   Andreas Ebbert-Karroum
      =A0=A0 Senior Software Design Engineer
                Nokia Networks Services / Middleware 
=A0=A0 phone: +49-211-94123928, fax: +49-211-9412-3838
=A0=A0 Heltorfer Stra=DFe 1, 40472 D=FCsseldorf, Germany 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is confidential. If you have received this message in =
error,
please delete it from your system. You should not copy it for any =
purpose,
or disclose its contents to any other person. Internet communications =
are
not secure and therefore Nokia GmbH does not accept legal responsibility
for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a =
public
network. Thank you.
Nokia GmbH, Nokia Networks is a German Company. Further information
about the Company is available from its principal offices at
Heltorferstrasse 1, D-40472, D=FCsseldorf, Germany and from the
website at http://www.nokia.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext George Cristian Bina [mailto:george@o...] 
>Sent: 28 November, 2006 11:18
>To: Ebbert-Karroum Andreas (Nokia-NET/Dusseldorf)
>Cc: xmlschema-dev@w...
>Subject: Re: Extensible enumerations in XML Schema
>
>Hi Andreas,
>
>When you define an element to substitute other element then 
>the element type must be derived from the type of the element 
>it should substitute.
>A union of two types is not derived from string even if both 
>types are restrictions of string, at least not according with 
>the specification.
>
>When using string instead of anySimpleType Xerces through 
>oXygen reports
>SystemID: C:\george\test\p1\test.xsd
>Location: 30:41
>Description: e-props-correct.4: The {type definition} of 
>element 'extendedState' is not validly derived from the {type 
>definition} of the substitutionHead ':baseState', or the 
>{substitution group exclusions} property of ':baseState' does 
>not allow this derivation.
>URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#e-props-correct
>
>That is it points to point 4 from
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#e-props-correct
>***
>4 If there is a {substitution group affiliation}, the {type 
>definition} of the element declaration must be validly derived 
>from the {type definition} of the {substitution group 
>affiliation}, given the value of the {substitution group 
>exclusions} of the {substitution group affiliation}, as 
>defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (=A73.4.6) (if the {type 
>definition} is complex) or as defined in Type Derivation OK
>(Simple) (=A73.14.6) (if the {type definition} is simple).
>***
>
>That is this refers to
>Type derivation Ok (Simple)
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-st-derived-ok
>***
>Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple)
>
>For a simple type definition (call it D, for derived) to be 
>validly derived from a type definition (call this B, for base) 
>given a subset of {extension, restriction, list, union} (of 
>which only restriction is actually relevant) one of the 
>following must be true:
>1 They are the same type definition.
>2 All of the following must be true:
>2.1 restriction is not in the subset, or in the {final} of its 
>own {base type definition};
>2.2 One of the following must be true:
>2.2.1 D's =B7base type definition=B7 is B.
>2.2.2 D's =B7base type definition=B7 is not the =B7ur-type 
>definition=B7 and is validly derived from B given the subset, as 
>defined by this constraint.
>2.2.3 D's {variety} is list or union and B is the =B7simple 
>ur-type definition=B7.
>2.2.4 B's {variety} is union and D is validly derived from a 
>type definition in B's {member type definitions} given the 
>subset, as defined by this constraint.
>Note: With respect to clause 1, see the Note on identity at the end of
>(=A73.4.6) above.
>***
>
>And here you can see that the only 2.2 clause that applies in 
>this case is
>2.2.3 D's {variety} is list or union and B is the =B7simple 
>ur-type definition=B7.
>
>Therefore B needs to be anySimpleType because D is a union.
>
>Best Regards,
>George
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>George Cristian Bina
><oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger 
>www.---.com
>
>
>andreas.ebbert-karroum@n... wrote:
>> Hello George,
>> 
>> Thanks for your valuable comments :-) Please find my answers 
>inline below:
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext George Cristian Bina [mailto:george@o...]
>>> Subject: Re: Extensible enumerations in XML Schema
>> 
>>> You can define the base state to be anySimpleType. Then define the 
>>> extendedRequestState as a union:
>>>
>>> <xs:simpleType name="extendedRequestState">
>>>     <xs:union memberTypes="ns0:RequestState">
>>>       <xs:simpleType>
>>>         <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>>>           <xs:enumeration value="open.running.new1"/>
>>>           <xs:enumeration value="open.running.new1"/>
>>>           <xs:enumeration value="open.running.new1"/>
>>>         </xs:restriction>
>>>       </xs:simpleType>
>>>     </xs:union>
>>>   </xs:simpleType>
>> 
>>>From my understanding that should also work, when the 
>baseState is a string, but it does not. What's the reason for that? 
>> 
>>> As a side note, in Relax NG that is really easy
>> 
>> I'm bound to XML Schema, sorry. But interesting to read, how 
>it is done with Relax NG.
>> 
>>  _         __                _  _
>> //\ndreas.[|-bbert-[]/arroum(a)[|\|okia.com
>>            `-        `
>>    Andreas Ebbert-Karroum
>>          Senior Software Design Engineer
>>                 Nokia Networks Services / Middleware 
>>    phone: +49-211-94123928, fax: +49-211-9412-3838
>>    Heltorfer Stra=DFe 1, 40472 D=FCsseldorf, Germany
>> 
>> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message is confidential. If you have received this message in 
>> error, please delete it from your system. You should not copy it for 
>> any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Internet 
>> communications are not secure and therefore Nokia GmbH does 
>not accept 
>> legal responsibility for the contents of this message as it has been 
>> transmitted over a public network. Thank you.
>> Nokia GmbH, Nokia Networks is a German Company. Further information 
>> about the Company is available from its principal offices at 
>> Heltorferstrasse 1, D-40472, D=FCsseldorf, Germany and from 
>the website 
>> at http://www.nokia.com/
>> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>
>

From george@oxygen