Re: complexContent extending complexType with simpleContent: why not?

On Feb 3, 2006, at 6:53 AM, Sandy Gao wrote:

>
> > Now, it is certainly the case that ExtendedType's content is  
> actually
> > simple, not complex, ...
>
> If you look at the mapping rules for complex types [1] ({content  
> type} for <complexContent> with <extension>), it's clear that the  
> {content type} of "ExtendedType" is element-only and a particle  
> (clause 3.2.3).
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#declare-type

Hmm, that's not clear to me.  Isn't the effective content empty due  
to clause 2.1.1 (and 2.1.5)?  That would make the content type the  
base type by clause 3.2.1.

joe