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

Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining

• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:21:23 +0100

Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...> writes:

> Curt Arnold wrote:
>  
> > Having to detect when multiple declarations are exactly (or
> > sufficiently) identical seems to be unnecessary complexity.
> 
> I don't think this is really so complex. Forgetting any impact of
> abstract elements: 
>  * a complex type declaration has its own symbol space for elements
>  * an element declaration (in a complex type declaration) not only
> defines the existance 
>    of the element, it also binds the name to a type (directly or by
> reference) 
>  * an subsequent uses of the element must also bind the name to the same
> type (directly
>    or by reference) 
> 
> A good question is whether a subsequent element can have a derived type
> of the first
> element's type?  Henry?

Nope, see reply to Curt.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

• References:
  • RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@h...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Next by Date: [ANN] Schematron mail list subscription details
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread