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

Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices

  • From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>
  • To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:05:48 +0000

xml roger l. costello

> Jeff Rafter wrote:
> >
>> I think that Martin's intent was to use a
> > restriction element instead of an extension element (correct me if I am
> > wrong).

Actually I was deliberately questioning whether or not we could use
extension in the same way as extension, by restating the requirements.
Reveiwing the specs I see we cannot do this directly, but what about;

     <complexType name="BookType">
        <all>
            <element name="Title" type="string"/>
            <element name="Author" type="string"/>
            <element name="Date" type="year"/>
            <element name="ISBN" type="string"/>
            <element name="Publisher" type="string"/>
        </all>
    </complexType>

   <complexType name="BookTypePlusReviewerType">
       <complexContent>
            <extension base="c:BookType" >
                <element name="Reviewer" type="string"/>
            </extension>
      </complexContent>
  </complexType>

<element name="BookReview" type="BookTypePlusReviewType">
       <complexType>
            <restriction base="c:BookType" >
                <sequence>
                    <element name="Reviewer" type="string"/>
                    <element name="Title" type="string"/>
                    <element name="Author" type="string"/>
                    <element name="Date" type="year"/>
                   <element name="ISBN" type="string"/>
                   <element name="Publisher" type="string"/>
                </sequence>
            </restriction>
        </complexType>
    </complexType>
</element>

The theory here is that the BookType does not define the sequence of the
elements, only that they are all required. Then you can add Reviewer to the
list of required elements to create a new type definition that extends the
unordered list. Then in the content type definition of the element it is
being applied to you sequence the list as required.

Is there any reason why this would not work? Isn't it safer than adding any
elements at start and end of each sequence, and between each member of the
sequence if you are to cover all eventualities?

Martin Bryan


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.