Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...> writes:
> <snip/>
> If you don't remove the type equivalance constraints, then what
> constitutes an identical type:
>
> How about:
>
> <schema...>
> <element name="foo">
> <complexType>
> <element name="bar">
> <simpleType base="long">
> <minInclusive>0</minInclusive>
> <maxInclusive>10</maxInclusive>
> </simpleType>
> </element>
> <element name="bar">
> <simpleType base="long">
> <minInclusive>0</minInclusive>
> <maxInclusive>10</maxInclusive>
> </simpleType>
> </element>
> </complexType>
> </element>
> </schema>
Nope. Identity means component identity as such. The only way to get
that is by reference. This should have been/will be called out more
explicitly in the spec.
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/
|
