2008/10/8 Michael Kay <mike@s...>:
>>
>> I'm looking at a machine generate schema which contains this:
>>
>> <xs:complexType name="foo">
>>   <xs:simpleContent>
>>     <xs:extension base="xs:string">
>>     </xs:extension>
>>   </xs:simpleContent>
>> </xs:complexType>
>>
>> That's just the same as type="xs:string" isn't it?
>>
>
> Not quite. It's a complex type rather than a simple type. It validates the
> same content as xs:string, but it can be extended and restricted (and
> unioned and listed...) in different ways from xs:string. It's likely to
> behave differently when you do Java data binding, and it's certainly
> different when you do type-aware XQuery and XSLT.

Different in a good way or different in a bad way? :)

Depending on the answer to that, I'm wondering if instead of using
type="xs:string" it would be worthwhile to have type="myString" with:

<xs:complexType name="myString">
 <xs:simpleContent>
   <xs:extension base="xs:string"/>
 </xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>




-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

From rowan@s... Mon Oct 13 07:18:27 2008
Received: from farnsworth.w3.org ([1