• From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@i...>
• To: 'Don Park' <donpark@q...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:31:46 +0100

Don Park wrote:
> > 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.

Er ... no you don't. (It might be worth revisiting the raging debate
about fragments from a few months ago.) The technique I have used means
it is always a complete schema, if it only represents a sub-set of some
larger schema.

Regards,

Mark

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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: ANNOUNCE: XML::RSS 0.2
• Next by Date: RE: DTD question
• 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