• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:11:48 +0100

"Martin Bryan" <mtbryan@s...> writes:

> 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?

Don't panic!  Of course you can have such content models.  All that is 
required is that the two 'b' elements have the same type.

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: nchen <nchen@w...>

• 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML language for Software documentation?
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas and extension
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by thread: RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread