• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:37:35 -0800
• References: <D60D8F448216D611A21A00508B62B5BC5B25@e...> <3C9BA057.4BF62052@r...>

Oops. This was in response to Jeff Lowery's clarification of the dual
nature of anyType in the following, and why an instance of myElem can
only have empty content.

> <element name="myElem">
>       <complexType>
>               <complexContent>
>                       <restriction base="anyType"/>
>               </complexContent>
>       </complexType>
> </element>

Sorry about the confusion.

-- Ron

Ronald Bourret wrote:
> 
> OK. Now that I finally understand why this is invalid, what is the point
> of allowing an xsd:restriction element with no children? Is it
> specifically to allow me to restrict content down to emptiness and yet
> still get the OO advantages (?) of using a restriction?

• References:
  • RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
  • Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by Date: Identiy Transform Question
• Previous by thread: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by thread: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread