Why would it be any more invalid than any other element being declared with
an abstract type? All it means is that the instance either has to have a
non-abstract xsi:type, or has to be an element in the substitution group of
myElement declared with a concrete subtype of abstractType.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On Behalf Of Pete Cordell
> Sent: 08 February 2007 12:01
> To: xmlschema-dev@w...
> Subject: Abstract types in substitution groups
> 
> 
> I've been looking at a published schema that uses an abstract 
> type in a substitution group.  i.e. something like:
> 
> 
> <xs:complexType name='abstractType' abstract='true'>
>     <xs:sequence/>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> <xs:element name='myElement' type='abstractType' 
> substitutionGroup='sgroup'/>
> 
> 
> To me this seems invalid.  Or do substitutionGroups have 
> special permission 
> to use abstract types?
> 
> Thanks for any help,
> 
> Pete.
> --
> =============================================
> Pete Cordell
> Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
> for XML to C++ data binding visit
> http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
> (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 


From petexmldev@t... Thu Feb 08 12:38:36 2007
Received: from lisa.w3.or