[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XSD Schema type derived by restriction problem

• From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
• To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:56:25 -0500

At 2009-11-20 13:39 -0500, Christopher Loschen wrote:
>Thanks very much for your reply!
>
>Yes, we do have the xs prefix mapped.

Then I find the error message wording misleading from the processor 
you are using:

   " Invalid xsi:type qname: 'xs:dateTime' in element "

... I interpreted to mean that the name was syntactically invalid, 
not that the type chosen by that name is invalid in the context given.

I think Mike has already explained the real problem.

When looking for chapter and verse of the W3C specifications, I find 
xsi:type= documented in the context of using abstract types in the 
schema and needing to specify something derived from an abstract type 
in the instance using xsi:type=.  While that isn't your situation, 
Mike's observation that in your note you state your type you are 
overriding is derived itself from dateTime thus dateTime cannot be a 
derived type of it seems to hit the mark:

At 2009-11-20 13:10 -0500, Christopher Loschen wrote:
>I'm working with a schema that defines a type by restricting the 
>simple dateTime type.
>...
>we specify that this element is of xsi:type="xs:dateTime" (that is, 
>the parent type).

. . . . . . . . . . Ken


--
Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video
Video lesson:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18
Video overview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

• References:
  • Re: XSD Schema type derived by restriction problem
    • From: "Christopher Loschen" <closchen@stanfordalumni.org>