W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Defining recursive elements?

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:50:20 +0100
Message-ID: <001301c798cf$b47c0f70$4200a8c0@Codalogic>
To: "Boris Kolpackov" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

----- Original Message From: "Boris Kolpackov" <...>

> Hi,
> Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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>
>> </xs:schema>
> Note that this change will result in a different schema if there
> was a target namespace involved. In the original example, both
> elements are qualified while in this schema the global one would
> be qualified while the local one wouldn't.

Although, just to clarify for those that are a bit fuzzy about namespaces in 
schema, commonly if people define a schema that specifies a target 
namespace, 9 times out of 10 they will also make 
elementFormDefault="qualified".  Hence all elements will end up qualified 
and the same result can be achieved.

Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:07:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:59 GMT