• From: "Don Park" <donpark@q...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:07:53 -0700

> document - you just pass a 'sub-set' of the schema (which is still
> itself a valid schema).

Thus we end up with "XML Schema Fragment" (XML Schema + XML Fragment).  Has
anyone actually tried doing this?  I am interested in knowing any serious
issues.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: XML trade off 1 - DTD vs XML Schema
    • From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: DTD question
• Next by Date: RE: Convertor wanted: C struct to XML schema
• Previous by thread: RE: XML trade off 1 - DTD vs XML Schema
• Next by thread: RE: XML trade off 1 - DTD vs XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread