XSD simpleType with final = extension

Mukul Gandhi <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.text.xml.devel
Message-ID <CANGHzgDU91kutASTTh3vQYTfEtDDw=Gf-19njBmdNXR++Za_Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all,
   I shall cite following references, from XML Schema specifications.

XSD 1.1 structures spec,

3.16.2 XML Representation of Simple Type Definition Schema Components

<simpleType
  final = (#all | List of (list | union | restriction | extension))
 .....

XSD 1.0 structures spec,

3.14.2 (non-normative) XML Representation of Simple Type Definition Schema
Components

<simpleType
  final = (#all | List of (list | union | restriction))
 .....

As you can see that, XSD 1.1 specifies "extension" as a possible value of
"final" attribute of simpleType. Is "extension" a valid value of
simpleType's attribute "final"? If yes, what is its semantics?

XSD 1.0 doesn't specify "extension" as a possible value of "final"
attribute of simpleType.

But there's a following microsoft test case XSD document within W3C XSD 1.0
test suite (which specifies "extension" as a value of
simpleType's attribute "final"),

<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">

     <xs:simpleType name="myType" final="extension">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string" />
     </xs:simpleType>

     <xs:complexType name="ct">
          <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="myType">
                   <xs:anyAttribute />
              </xs:extension>
           </xs:simpleContent>
     </xs:complexType>

     <xs:element name="myElement" type="ct" />

</xs:schema>

The corresponding test case definition, within W3C XSD 1.0 test suite is
following,

<schemaTest name="stZ041">
    <schemaDocument xlink:href="../msData/simpleType/stZ041.xsd"/>
    <expected validity="valid"/>
    <current date="2006-12-22" status="queried" bugzilla="
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4064"/>
    <prior date="2006-07-16" status="accepted"/>
</schemaTest>

Is the above cited test case correct?

Any thoughts about above mentioned points, shall be helpful to know.

PS: to my enlightenment, the related w3c bugzilla entry for this test case
cited above concludes, "WG agreed that either way the test is invalid".


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.