|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] schemas: why no local type bindings?
i'm working my way into schemas and found the distinction between anonymous and names types baroque. i need to read further to see what named types can mean, beyond that which the equivalent entity based definitions would have accomplished. given, however, that they exist, why pray-tell would one then proscribe local definitions? wouldn't there just as well be cases where such resemblances would occur within elements as well as at a global level? > > Finally, the last permutation: > > > > <element name="element1"> > > <type name="type1"> > > <element name="element2" type="string" /> > > </type> > > </element> > > > > is legal, and the type is referenceable by other elements, but is bad > > form (IMHO). If you have a type that will be used multiple times, put > > it on its own (explicit type). If it is only used once, use an implicit > > type within the element definition. Things like this are very > > confusing. > > First real misunderstanding: this is NOT allowed: only top-level > types can have names. Again, the schema for schemas expresses this > constraint. xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








