[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Basic XMLSchema questions
Alan Santos wrote: > > Thanks for the quick response Brett. > > In the example below, I understand the point of <datatype>, > but what is <type> getting us? Don't you have the same thing without it? Nope. This: > > <element name="myElement"> > > <element name="nestedElement" type="string" /> > > <element name="anotherNestedElement" type="string" /> > > <attribute name="isPrimary"> > > <datatype content="empty" /> > > </attribute> > > <attribute name="focus"> > > <datatype content="NMTOKENS"> > > <enumeration value="Java" /> > > <enumeration value="C" /> > > <enumeration value="XML" /> > > </datatype> > > </attribute> > > </element> is mucho illegal. Remember that XML Schema will be handled by SAX, which is sequential. So SAX must know _ahead_ of time that it is going to be dealing with a compound type. That way it can know to allow multiple element definitions within another definition. Without the <type> construct, SAX would have to "magically" know when nested element definitions are legal and when they are not... I know there are other good reasons, too, although I'm too tired to think of them... sorry.. ;-) -Brett > > > for example: > > > > <element name="myElement"> > > <type> > > <element name="nestedElement" type="string" /> > > <element name="anotherNestedElement" type="string" /> > > <attribute name="isPrimary"> > > <datatype content="empty" /> > > </attribute> > > <attribute name="focus"> > > <datatype content="NMTOKENS"> > > <enumeration value="Java" /> > > <enumeration value="C" /> > > <enumeration value="XML" /> > > </datatype> > > </attribute> > > </type> > > </element> > > > > > Your schema is one-to-one with a Java class? This wouldn't be a good > > idea, unless I'm misunderstanding your intent. Maybe your _XML_ is > > based on a class, and it specifies the class, but then multiple XML docs > > (therefore multiple classes) all use the same Schema. > > > > The _XML_ contains instances. But felt it was more appropriate within the > schema document. (Or some other xml instance document) > > Why do you feel it is a poor decision? > Am I abusing the intent of an XML Schema in a horrible manner? > Perhaps XMI is a better option for my needs? > > > Why not? What's the difference in your mind? If you can define an > > infinite number of types, and define an infinite number of elements with > > any defined type, how is that not flexible? > > Sorry, it is flexible, it just means more work for me, and users of my > application. > > Now we need two elements when we wish to add a new type to the schema > (unless I'm missing something else) > > (e.g. <element name="xxxReference"/> > <element name="xxx"/>) > > thanks, > alan xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|