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

Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining

• From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:53:51 -0400

Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
> 
> A good question is whether a subsequent element can have a derived 
> type of the first element's type? 

I tested this with XSV.  Here's what I tried:

<element name="Book">
   <complexType>
      <element name="cost" type="decimal"/>
      <element name="cost" type="b:money"/>
   </complexType>
</element>
<simpleType name="money" base="decimal">
   <scale value="2"/>
</simpleType>

XSV gave an error with this, stating the cost had been multiply defined
and is therefore illegal.  /Roger

• References:
  • RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@h...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Next by Date: [ANN] Schematron mail list and site at Source Forge
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread