- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:57:46 +0100
- To: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: "Todd Moon" <tmrfcm@gmail.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
----- Original Message From: "Andrew Welch" <...> To: "Michael Kay" <...> Cc: "Todd Moon" <...>; <...> > > On 5/17/07, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote: >> > Well it's a matter of taste, but if you use the venetian >> > blind style of schema then you wouldn't use element ref="" >> > much, but @type instead, eg: >> > >> > <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> >> > >> > <xs:element name="part" type="part"/> >> > >> > <xs:complexType name="part"> >> > <xs:sequence> >> > <xs:element name="part" type="part" minOccurs="0" >> > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> >> > </xs:sequence> >> > <xs:attribute name="serial" type="xs:string"/> >> > </xs:complexType> >> > >> >> I'm not sure it's just a matter of taste. It feels wrong to me to have >> two >> element declarations for element part, one global and one local, when all >> the part elements are the same. It gives the same answers as far as >> validation of instances is concerned, but it seems a messier component >> model, which could give you a messier translation into classes when you >> do >> data binding, for example (I don't know if that's actually the case). It may also depend on whether the global element 'part' is the only element to have type 'part'. And also depends on whether you might want to add another element of type 'part' later (although it's not impossible to tweak that when the need arises!). Pete. -- ============================================= Pete Cordell Tech-Know-Ware Ltd for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/ http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ =============================================
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 15:58:19 UTC