 |
|
|
Hej,
the schema spec 1.1 says for the {context} of a simple type defined inside a
simpleContent restriction:
2.4.2 otherwise (the grandparent element information item is <simpleContent>),
the Simple Type Definition which is the {content type} of the Complex Type
Definition corresponding to the great-grandparent <complexType> element
information item.
But doesn't that mean that the simple type can end up with the context
pointing to itself, as the simple type can be the {content type} of the
Complex Type Definition in some cases?
Shouldn't the complex type definition be the {context} of the simple type
instead? Otherwise I don't see how the context could be a Complex Type
Definition as mentioned in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#std-context
Ciao,
Tobias
|
|
| |
These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.
| |
| |
|
|
|
