W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > October 2000

[xmlschema-dev] <none>

From: <Mike_Leditschke@nemmco.com.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:19:23 +1000
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0B65AA7D.59A1320F-ON4A256984.00194CD8@nemmco.com.au>
I am attempting to build a number of XML schemas using the
http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema version of the spec. I am using
XMLSpy which is reporting errors on XML that looks valid to me.

I would appreciate an indication as to whether or not the errors are
legitimate.


Problems

1. The XML below gets the message below when validation is attempted.

"We are sorry, but the elements that have the same name but different types
  functionality is not yet implemented in this version".

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- edited with XML Spy v3.0.7 NT (http://www.xmlspy.com) by Michael
Leditschke (NEMMCO) -->
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema">
  <complexType name="a">
    <element name="c" type="string"/>
  </complexType>
  <complexType name="b">
    <element name="c" type="decimal"/>
  </complexType>
</schema>

The two c elements are part of different type definitions and should be
locally scoped and hence happily have different types. Yes/No?

4. The XML below gets the message below when validation is attempted

"DTD/Schema error - element 'd' already defined" (the second definition is
 highlighted).

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- edited with XML Spy v3.0.7 NT (http://www.xmlspy.com) by Michael
Leditschke (NEMMCO) -->
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema">
  <complexType name="a">
    <element name="d">
      <simpleType base="string">
        <length value="5"/>
      </simpleType>
    </element>
  </complexType>
  <complexType name="b">
    <element name="d">
      <simpleType base="string">
        <length value="5"/>
      </simpleType>
    </element>
  </complexType>
</schema>

This situation is very similar to the previous one except that rather than
using an
inbuilt type, I'm using an anonymous type definition. Again, the two 'd'
elements
are part of different type definitions and should be locally scoped.
What have I done this time?


Any assistance gratefully received.

Regards
Michael
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2000 03:20:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:47 UTC