[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > Just an aside. There is an excellent article from > Donald Smith at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/08/22/easyschema.html > on the mysteries of the Schemas type tree. It doesn't take > up the issues of namespace, binding vs validating etc. but it > makes it much easier to understand how to do some fundamental > work with schemas that befuddled some of us for awhile. > > Good Work, Mr. Smith! Seconded. A good article. It goes a long way towards anwering the question in the Subject: line, too. When I figured out that the sample XSD fragment | <complexType name="myNewNameType"> | <complexContent> | <restriction base="anyType"> | <sequence> | <element name="name" type="string" /> | <element name="location" type="string" /> | </sequence> | <attribute name="position" type="string" /> | </restriction> | </complexContent> | </complexType> | <element name="employee" type="dc:myNewNameType" /> means, basically, <!ELEMENT employee (name, location) > <!ATTLIST employee position CDATA #IMPLIED > <!ELEMENT name (#PCDATA) > <!ELEMENT location (#PCDATA) > I said to myself, "complexType? That's not a complex type. Now *this* (<^>) :: P ((a -> b) -> c -> d -> e) -> P ((f -> g) -> d -> d -> b) -> P (((a,f) -> g) -> c -> d -> e) [*] is a complex type!" The 'employee' definition only *looks* complex when it's written in W3C XML Schema notation. --Joe English jenglish@f...
|
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
|