- From: Boris Kolpackov <boris@codesynthesis.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:22:17 +0200
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Cc: "'Andrew Welch'" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Todd Moon'" <tmrfcm@gmail.com>
Hi, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> writes: > Well it's a matter of taste, but if you use the venetian blind style > of schema then you wouldn't use element ref="" much, but @type > instead, eg: > > <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> > > <xs:element name="part" type="part"/> > > <xs:complexType name="part"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="part" type="part" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </xs:sequence> > <xs:attribute name="serial" type="xs:string"/> > </xs:complexType> > > </xs:schema> Note that this change will result in a different schema if there was a target namespace involved. In the original example, both elements are qualified while in this schema the global one would be qualified while the local one wouldn't. Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> writes: > ... which could give you a messier translation into classes when you do > data binding, for example (I don't know if that's actually the case). I don't think this design would cause any problems in data binding since most tools would translate types to classes and there is only one type involved. The local part element would normally end up being translated to a member function in that class while the global one could be mapped to something that can parse a document (e.g., a global function). hth, -boris -- Boris Kolpackov Code Synthesis Tools CC http://www.codesynthesis.com Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:25:40 UTC