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

Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining

• From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>
• To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:56:36 -0500

Martin Bryan wrote:
> 
> But Curt
 
> 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}.
> 

The phrases in {} have special meanings defined in section 3.1.  {model
group definitions} is defined a "set of named model group definitions".

Basically, it is saying that you cannot have in the set of "named model
group definitions" two or more "model groups" with the same name and
target namespace.  Where you can substitute "named type definitions",
"named element definitions", etc for "named model groups" and similarly
for "model groups".

If it were a constraint on the content of a model group it would have
appeared in section 5.7 (Model Group Constraints), not in Section 5.13
(Schema Constraints).

• 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...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>

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