- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 03 Feb 2001 12:01:13 +0000
- To: John Britton <johnb@peakaudio.com>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
John Britton <johnb@peakaudio.com> writes: > > > > 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, Whoa! anonymous==NO NAME! Every anonymous type definition is distinct from every other anonymous type definition, of necessity. > 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). Of course two anonymous types can have different content. You just can't use two anonymous types as the type of two elements with the same name in a given content model. See previous thread in this list starting at [1]. ht [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2001Jan/0031.html -- 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 Saturday, 3 February 2001 07:01:16 UTC