- From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:38:01 -0700
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, ochipara@cse.unl.edu, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> If you study the schema design carefully, you'll realize that this > suggestion means that no elements can have attributes, and no elements can > have other elements in their content. Surely that is not what you > intended. The following explanation is adapted from a note I wrote > earlier today on the same subject: What I really meant is to erase complex types from our brains. As you wrote, we cannot remove the <complexType> tag from the schema. The following sentence in my article is trying to state this. (from DOs and DON'Ts) > To be precise, you can always write it without understanding complex > types, but unfortunately you have to type <complexType> elements. > ... > <xs:element name="head"> > <xs:complexType> <!-- consider this as a place holder --> > ... What I'm trying in this article is to convince readers not to use named complex types (thus always use anonymous complex types.) I hope the above sentence is doing that job, but is that not enough? Aside from this misunderstanding caused by my poorly written sentence, I don't see any difference in our opinions. regards, ---------------------- K.Kawaguchi E-Mail: kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2001 23:37:55 UTC