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

Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining

• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:58:05 +0100

Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...> writes:

> <snip/>

> If you don't remove the type equivalance constraints, then what
> constitutes an identical type:
> 
> How about:
> 
> <schema...>
>    <element name="foo">
> 	<complexType>
> 	    <element name="bar">
> 		<simpleType base="long">
> 		    <minInclusive>0</minInclusive>
> 		    <maxInclusive>10</maxInclusive>
> 		</simpleType>
> 	    </element>
> 	    <element name="bar">
> 		<simpleType base="long">
> 		    <minInclusive>0</minInclusive>
> 		    <maxInclusive>10</maxInclusive>
> 		</simpleType>
> 	    </element>
>          </complexType>
>     </element>
> </schema>

Nope.  Identity means component identity as such.  The only way to get 
that is by reference.  This should have been/will be called out more
explicitly in the spec.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, 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/

• References:
  • RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
    • From: Curt Arnold <CurtA@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread