? Named Groups vs. Named Complex Types

Being new to the mailing list, I've been trying to identify some rules of thumb / best practices about when to use named Complex Types vs. Named Groups.

For instance, for the following 2 options to define a complex element, the only difference I can identify between the 2 is Readability (the 1st 'Salami Slice' design being more readable)

(these 2 element declarations are assumed for both examples)
<element name="FooElem1" type="string"/>
<element name="FooElem2" type="string"/>

-------------
(example 1) 
<element name="Foo" type="FooType"/> 

<complexType name="FooType">
  <sequence>
    <element ref="FooElem1" minOccurs="0"/>
    <element ref="FooElem2" minOccurs="0"/>
  </sequence>
</complexType> 

-----------
(example 2) 
<element name="Foo2"> 
  <complexType> 
    <sequence> 
      <group ref="FooGroup"/>
    </sequence>
  </complexType> 
</element>

<group name="FooGroup">
  <sequence>
    <element ref="FooElem1" minOccurs="0"/>
  </sequence>
</group>

Both examples achieve the declaration of a complex element. 
So, is there more to this than just weighing readability?  

Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Viju



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!