> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 16:12
> To: 'David RR Webber (XML)'
> Cc: ''
> Subject: CIQ and <ComplexContent>
>
> David,
>
> I see what you mean when you say that this is a grey area in
> XSD. I checked the Recommendation and indeed this is a grey
> area. It is true that the current CIQ schema does not
> violate any normative statement in the Recommendation. So
> even though it is intuitively wrong, it is not an outright
> error either.
>
> The reason I say it is intuitively wrong is that *actually*
> extending a "complex type definition with simple content"
> into a "complex type definition with complex content" (i.e.,
> by adding particles) is forbidden by the Recommendation. So
> you cannot use the <complexContent> tag for the only purpose
> for which this tag exists--that is, to specify complex
> content. However, you are allowed to use that tag (as an
> alternative to <simpleContent>) **so long as it has no
> effect**, which is funny!
>
> Notice that in this case the resulting (extended) type will
> be a complex type with **simple** content, even though the
> tag <complexContent> is being used. It feels wrong, doesn't it?
Anyway, with regard to CIQ, they have used the tag <simpleContent> in some
places and the tag <complexContent> in other places, to define different
extensions of the same type (which is a complex type with simple content).
We can include this observation in our note to the CIQ TC.
Alessandro
