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

Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?

• From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>
• To: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@a...>,Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:08:40 -0700

Eddie Robertsson wrote:
> Although, I agree that W3C XML Schema can be complex why make it worse
> than it has to be?
> The above can written as (unless there is a specific reason for
> restricting the anyType that I can't think of...):

You are restricting anyType here too. The shorthand version is just syntax
sugar. So I think it's actually easier to learn if you forget about the
abbreviated version until you know what the full syntax means, which is one
of the points made in the article[1].

Evan Lenz
XYZFind Corp.

[1] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/08/22/easyschema.html (particularly the
section aptly titled "Ambushed by Abbreviation")

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: An open plea to the W3C (was Re: XInclude vs SAX vs
• Next by Date: Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Previous by thread: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Next by thread: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread