Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The validity first document is valid while the second isn't but not for the reasons you suppose. The second one is invalid because no type definition exists for a type named "Book1". :)
However, assuming that a Book1 type one existed and it was a valid restriction of Book then you are correct that the document is invalid. According to
Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Element) [0]
4 If there is an attribute information item among the element information item's [attributes] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.element> whose [namespace name] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.attribute> is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance and whose [local name] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.attribute> is type, then all of the following must be true:
4.1 The ·normalized value· of that attribute information item must be ·valid· with respect to the built-in QName <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/datatypes#QName> simple type, as defined by String Valid (§3.14.4);
4.2 The ·local name· and ·namespace name· (as defined in QName Interpretation (§3.15.3)), of the ·actual value· of that attribute information item must resolve to a type definition, as defined in QName resolution (Instance) (§3.15.4) -- [Definition:] call this type definition the local type definition;
4.3 The ·local type definition· must be validly derived from the {type definition} given the union of the {disallowed substitutions} and the {type definition}'s {prohibited substitutions}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) (if it is a complex type definition), or given {disallowed substitutions} as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6) (if it is a simple type definition).
[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/#cvc-elt
-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@C...]
Sent: Fri 5/17/2002 8:18 AM
To: Eddie Robertsson
Cc: Nada Reinprecht; xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re: Two quick questions regarding restriction in XML Schema
thanks, that clears things up. Can I ask one more question:
Suppose we defined type Book as (we define block has value restriction)
type Book (block="restriction") -> (Title, Author*)
and the remaining definitions for type Book1, as well as the element
declaration for element book stay the same.
Now, again consider the two documents:
<book>
<title>XYZ</title>
<author>ABC</author>
<author>DEF</author>
</book>
and
<book xsi:type="Book1">
<title>XYZ</title>
<author>ABC</author>
<author>DEF</author>
</book>
Is it true that the first document is valid, whereas the second document
is invalid??
thanks and regards - murali.
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Eddie Robertsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > type Book -> (Title, Author*)
> > type Book1 restricts Book -> (Title, Author, Author)
> >
> > (in other words, Book1 is for Books with exactly two Authors)
> >
> > Now suppose we declare an element as
> >
> > <element book type="Book">
> >
> > and in the document however we want to use type Book1, how do we say that?
> >
> > Do we say
> > <book>
> > <title>XYZ</title>
> > <author>ABC</author>
> > <author>DEF</author>
> > </book>
>
> No, this will use the type "Book".
>
> > or do we say
> > <book xsi:type="Book1">
> > <title>XYZ</title>
> > <author>ABC</author>
> > <author>DEF</author>
> > </book>
>
> Yes, this will use the type "Book1" so if you do:
>
> <book xsi:type="Book1">
> <title>XYZ</title>
> <author>ABC</author>
> <author>DEF</author>
> <author>EDF</author>
> </book>
>
> you will receive a validation error.
>
> > I think it should be the latter?
>
> Correct.
>
> Cheers,
> /Eddie
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
