On Thursday 19 February 2009 16:51:13 Kevin Braun wrote:
Hej,

> I think you followed it correctly, and if I read Schema 1.1 section 
> 3.4.6.2 Derivation Valid (Extension) correctly, Type2 would not be a 
> legal extension  (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#coss-ct).
> 
> Also, this discussion relates: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2006Feb/0001.html
> 
> I'm thinking Schema 1.1 is tightening up something that was overlooked 
> in 1.0.
Actually IMHO Schema 1.0 is right here and 1.1 wrong. If you have a complex
type with simple content and derive from it by _extension_, why should the derived
type have an empty content? Extension always increases the value space, not
decreases it.

I guess it is an error in 4.2.1) of http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#dcl.ctd.ctcc.common
to point to 4.1 for "empty or simple". 4.1 should only be used for the "empty" case and "simple"
should be handled separately (e.g. use the content type of the base type).

Ciao,
Tobias

From kbraun@o... Thu Feb 19 16:40:41 2009
Received: from bar