Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I still don't really get the thrust of the document though... To spread the wealth, that's all :-) > Talking about model groups the way you do is as confusing as the way you > talk about attribute groups, to me, at least because you can only use model > groups as part of complex types. You are right that I should update the document to make it clearer. My intention is to purge "complex types" from our minds. However, The fact is, as you said, and I agree, we can't wipe them off from the surface of a schema. But *if* you decided not to use the inheritance (or the substitution group, etc.), then you can consider that <complexType> is just a part of an element declaration. In other words, you can think of them as if <element> and <complexType> are inseparable elements. I believe this is the way good citizens should go, and probably this is the point you don't agree. But there is no need to make readers confused by introducing useless concepts such as anonymous complex types or the inheritance when I'm denying the whole concept of the complex type, isn't there. regards, ---------------------- K.Kawaguchi E-Mail: kohsukekawaguchi@y...
|
