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

RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining

• From: nchen <nchen@w...>
• To: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@c...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:08:18 -0400

>this in turn is defined as equality of name.

Types can be anonymous! How can we prove two types are the same if they
don't have names? Do I miss something from the specs?

Ninggang
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-xml-schema-ig-request@w...
[mailto:w3c-xml-schema-ig-request@w...]On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 4:25 PM
To: nchen@w...
Cc: 'Martin Bryan'; xml-dev@l...; w3c-xml-schema-ig@w...
Subject: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining


I'm in a rush so I can't find the reference, but equality of types is
subsumed under equality of components, and this in turn is defined as
equality of name.

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/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: King of Stupid XML Articles?
• Next by Date: Re: King of Stupid XML Articles?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread