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

Re: Nested type definitions.

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Oct 2000 10:10:26 +0000
To: "Jason Diamond" <jason@injektilo.org>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bbsw24p2l.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
"Jason Diamond" <jason@injektilo.org> writes:

> Do nested type definitions such as
> <xs:element name="foo">
>  <xs:complexType>
>   <xs:attribute ...>...</xs:attribute>
>  </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> get added to the schema's {type definitions} property? Obviously, the lack
> of a name makes it a bit difficult to resolve but what if it did have a
> name?

There's some flexibility here.  I interpret the WG's decision as
reflected in the WD as saying they're there, but only in the sense
that they're within other named things, in this case the 'foo' element

> <xs:element name="foo">
>  <xs:complexType name="bar">
>   <xs:attribute ...>...</xs:attribute>
>  </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> Is that legal or are nested type definitions required to be anonymous and
> thus unsuitable for inclusion in {type definitions}?

Nested type def'ns must be anonymous.

  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Monday, 30 October 2000 05:10:36 UTC

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