Re: Schema subset efforts

> 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