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

Re: Best Practice - beyond schema

• To: "Anderson, John" <John@B...>
• Subject: Re: Best Practice - beyond schema
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: 21 Jun 2002 15:53:14 +0100
• Cc: Xml-Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <6D54B6A5DCF9D311971600D0B74758C10255C132@a...>
• References: <6D54B6A5DCF9D311971600D0B74758C10255C132@a...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.2(beta13) (Demeter)

"Anderson, John" <John@B...> writes:

<snip/>

> Restriction is reuse by copy, not reuse by inheritance.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong about this, and the entire CT definition doesn't have to be
> duplicated in the restriction, but I've tried to get clarification of this
> in the past without much success, and the XSD primer and any experts I've
> heard talk about it say this is the case.

Yes, but good style therefore suggests using a named model group for
the unchanged parts, in which the schema processor will do the copying 
for you.

> PS: TANSTAAFL is too long an acronym to parse. It sounds like the name of a
> South African province.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch -- for its use in computer
context see "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Robert Heinlein.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

• References:
  • RE: Best Practice - beyond schema
    • From: "Anderson, John" <John@B...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Ann: Schemachine (a pipelined Xml validationframework)
• Next by Date: Re: Best Practice - beyond schema
• Previous by thread: RE: Best Practice - beyond schema
• Next by thread: RE: Best Practice - beyond schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread