- From: John Britton <johnb@peakaudio.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:41:39 -0700
- To: "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
>
> XML Schema specifically dis-allows this [1] -- the basic
> reasoning being that the element<->type association
> should be stable within a particular complex type.
>
> ht
> --
> Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group,
>
Thank you for the response.
So, should I read the following (from XML Schema Part 1 : Structures):
"Except for anonymous complex type definitions (those with no {name}), since
type definitions (i.e. both simple and complex type definitions taken
together) must be uniquely identified within an XML Schema, no complex type
definition can have the same name as another simple or complex type
definition."
as allowing anonymous type definitions to have the same name, but only if
the content is declared in the same way? I read this statment as supporting
my position (different content allowed), but I admit to not reading the rest
of the spec carefully (in a selfish attempt to avoid instant narcolepsy).
John Britton
Very Important Engineer++
Peak Audio Inc., 1790 30th Street, Suite 414, Boulder, CO 80301
johnb@peakaudio.com, http://www.peakaudio.com/
Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 11:45:18 UTC