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

RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element d

• To: <bob@w...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:24:50 -0800
• Thread-index: AcQWq3SS++TGEhIUQmSz9dog0NZ9swAAojqQ
• Thread-topic: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?

According to http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/#cvc-elt

"<element>s within <schema> produce global element declarations;
<element>s within <group> or <complexType> produce either particles
which contain global element declarations (if there's a ref attribute)
or local declarations (otherwise). For complete declarations, top-level
or local, the type attribute is used when the declaration can use a
built-in or pre-declared type definition. Otherwise an anonymous
<simpleType> or <complexType> is provided inline."

The last sentence is the relevant one. The schema fragment below is
invalid. 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
It works better if you plug it in.    

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@w...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:05 PM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  XML Schema Question: named or anonymous 
> types in element definition?
> 
> I appeal to the gods of XML, schemas, etc. to clarify an 
> issue concerning XML Schema use...
> 
> In the CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) specification[1], there 
> are a number of element definitions that look something like 
> the following:
> 
> <element name = "msgType">
>  <simpleType name = "msgType" >
>  <restriction base = "string">
>    ...
>  </restriction>
>  </simpleType>
> </element>
> 
> I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that the "simpleType" element 
> above should not have a name attribute. i.e. it should be simply:
> "<simpleType>..." I note that the .NET XSD editor simply 
> rewrites such named types to anonymous types in the editor. 
> Other schema editors complain about the name attributes, 
> however, it is reported that the XSD tools that come with 
> Axis require that the name attribute be present. 
> 
> What is the *correct* coding of this schema? Should the 
> <simpleType> elements in this situation have name attributes? 
> If not, then is it that they MUST not have them, or is it 
> that they SHOULD or MAY not have them? (I can't find the spot 
> in the XML Schema spec which would address this issue...
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5666/emergency-CAP-1
> .0.pdf
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org 
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
> 

• Prev by Date: parse the xml data and then display it
• Next by Date: RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• Previous by thread: parse the xml data and then display it
• Next by thread: Re: [Sax-devel] SAX2: When to resolve System Ids
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread