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

Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining

• From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>
• To: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:01:41 +0100

But Curt


> Martin Bryan wrote:
> > am I right in inferring that a  valid XML content model of (a, b, c, b) cannot be expressed using a schema?
> 
> No, the constraint that was quoted is on the top-level declarations in a
> schema.  It is saying you can't do:

it also says that they apply to  model group definitions, e.g to sequence and all. Hence my query about the wording of:

> 2  Each of the {type definitions}, {element declarations}, {attribute
> group definitions}, {model group definitions} and {notation
> declarations} must not contain two or more schema components with the
> same {name} and {target namespace}.  

Model group definitions are odd-balls.  For any or all you want the rule to apply, but for sequence you definitely do not. Hence my great concern.

Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>

• References:
  • RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread