[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: xml-dev@l..., ht@c...
• Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:49:57 +0100

Henry

From
> 
> Section 5.13 (schema constraints):
> 
> 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}.  

am I right in inferring that a  valid XML content model of (a, b, c, b) cannot be expressed using a schema?

If this is the case I must warn the ebXML community immediately as they are expecting to use models of the form (x, date, y, date) and (x, quanity, y quantity) extensively.

Martin Bryan

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

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by Date: [Announce] Sablotron 0.44
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread