• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:35:06 +0100

"Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...> writes:

<snip/>

> On the other hand, Henry says that the 'ref' form is equivalent to the
> in-lined form,

No, I didn't say equivalent, I said the global def'n is brought in to
play by the ref.

Note that the following is not allowed, reasoning as before (same
name, two types):

<schema xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema'
        targetNamespace='http://www.example.com/toony'
        xmlns:my='http://www.example.com/toony'
        elementFormDefault='qualified'>

<element name='foo' type='integer'>

<comlexType name='tt'>
 <sequence>
  <element ref='my:foo'/>
  <element name='foo' type='string'/>
 </sequence>
</complexType>

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...>
  • Multiply Defined Elements (was: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versusin-lining)
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Next by Date: Re: What happened to XPATH?
• Previous by thread: Multiply Defined Elements (was: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versusin-lining)
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread