Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Dah! I'm asleep today... the reason you need <type> is because you can > specify explicit named types: > > <type name="myType"> > <element name="nestedElement" type="string" /> > <element name="anotherNestedElement" type="integer" /> > </type> > > <element name="myElement" type="myType" /> > > There is no way without the <type> element construct to specify a name > for a non-primitive data type without really blowing away any idea of > congruity across the element space. So we have the "type" element. > > Make sense? > Yes it does now. Syntactically it appears to be legal to simply have <type> on it's own, outside of any elements. Is it simply a stylistic difference to define it inside another element? thanks, alan 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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
