|
The definition of restriction in XML Schema
reads:
>A type definition whose declarations or facets are in a
>one-to-one relation with those of another specified type
>definition, with each in turn restricting the possibilities
>of
the one it corresponds to, is said to be a restriction.
Would this definition make syntactic coincidence unduely
significant?
Let me illustrate with an example:
Let me define a base type 'fields' as:
<complexType name='fields'>
<sequence>
<element
name='field' maxOccurs='Unbound'/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
would the following derived type have violated the
definition
of restriction?
<complexType name='myfields'>
<complexContent>
<restriction
base='fields'>
<sequence>
<element name='field'
tag='15A'/>
<element name='field'
tag='20'/
</sequence>
</restriction>
</<complexContent>
</complexType>
However, if we define base type fields to be an
equivalent:
<complexType name='fields'>
<sequence>
<element
name='field'
maxOccurs='Unbound'/>
<element name='field' minOccurs='0'
maxOccurs='Unbound'/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
Then the restriction is OK.
Please tell me that I misread the definition.
Jay Zhang
IntermicsTech, Inc.
| 
Cart
