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

RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element d

• To: <bob@w...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:44:16 +0100
• In-reply-to: <006801c416ab$615f49f0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• Thread-index: AcQWq2c10CC4hwvmRBKj8rJ5qmmGQwABNgwg

I think the name attribute is indeed prohibited, and I think the place where
this is defined is in the schema for schemas (which is normative). The
simpleType element has different types depending where it appears.
Specifically, in the schema for datatypes we find:

<xs:complexType name="localSimpleType">
    <xs:complexContent>
      <xs:restriction base="xs:simpleType">
        <xs:sequence>
          <xs:element ref="xs:annotation" minOccurs="0"/>
          <xs:group ref="xs:simpleDerivation"/>
        </xs:sequence>
        <xs:attribute name="name" use="prohibited">


Michael Kay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@w...] 
> Sent: 30 March 2004 23:05
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  XML Schema Question: named or anonymous 
> types in element definition?
> 
> I appeal to the gods of XML, schemas, etc. to clarify an issue
> concerning XML Schema use...
> 
> In the CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) specification[1], there are a
> number of element definitions that look something like the following:
> 
> <element name = "msgType">
>  <simpleType name = "msgType" >
>  <restriction base = "string">
>    ...
>  </restriction>
>  </simpleType>
> </element>
> 
> I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that the "simpleType" element above
> should not have a name attribute. i.e. it should be simply:
> "<simpleType>..." I note that the .NET XSD editor simply rewrites such
> named types to anonymous types in the editor. Other schema editors
> complain about the name attributes, however, it is reported that the
> XSD tools that come with Axis require that the name attribute be
> present. 
> 
> What is the *correct* coding of this schema? Should the <simpleType>
> elements in this situation have name attributes? If not, then is it
> that they MUST not have them, or is it that they SHOULD or MAY not
> have them? (I can't find the spot in the XML Schema spec which would
> address this issue...
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5666/emergency-CAP-1
> .0.pdf
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
> 

• References:
  • XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• Previous by thread: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread