|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> Just an aside. There is an excellent article from
> Donald Smith at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/08/22/easyschema.html
> on the mysteries of the Schemas type tree. It doesn't take
> up the issues of namespace, binding vs validating etc. but it
> makes it much easier to understand how to do some fundamental
> work with schemas that befuddled some of us for awhile.
>
> Good Work, Mr. Smith!
Seconded. A good article.
It goes a long way towards anwering the question in the
Subject: line, too. When I figured out that the sample
XSD fragment
| <complexType name="myNewNameType">
| <complexContent>
| <restriction base="anyType">
| <sequence>
| <element name="name" type="string" />
| <element name="location" type="string" />
| </sequence>
| <attribute name="position" type="string" />
| </restriction>
| </complexContent>
| </complexType>
| <element name="employee" type="dc:myNewNameType" />
means, basically,
<!ELEMENT employee (name, location) >
<!ATTLIST employee
position CDATA #IMPLIED >
<!ELEMENT name (#PCDATA) >
<!ELEMENT location (#PCDATA) >
I said to myself, "complexType? That's not a complex type.
Now *this*
(<^>) :: P ((a -> b) -> c -> d -> e)
-> P ((f -> g) -> d -> d -> b)
-> P (((a,f) -> g) -> c -> d -> e) [*]
is a complex type!"
The 'employee' definition only *looks* complex when it's
written in W3C XML Schema notation.
--Joe English
jenglish@f...
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








