• From: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@a...>
• To: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:15:23 +1000

> It goes a long way towards anwering the question in the
> Subject: line, too.   When I figured out that the sample
> XSD fragment
>
> | <complexType name="myNewNameType">
> |     <complexContent>
> |       <restriction base="anyType">
> |           <sequence>
> |               <element name="name" type="string" />
> |               <element name="location" type="string" />
> |           </sequence>
> |           <attribute name="position" type="string" />
> |       </restriction>
> |     </complexContent>
> | </complexType>
> | <element name="employee" type="dc:myNewNameType" />
>

Although, I agree that W3C XML Schema can be complex why make it worse
than it has to be?
The above can written as (unless there is a specific reason for
restricting the anyType that I can't think of...):

<complexType name="myNewNameType">
     <sequence>
         <element name="name" type="string" />
         <element name="location" type="string" />
     </sequence>
     <attribute name="position" type="string" />
</complexType>
<element name="employee" type="dc:myNewNameType" />

Cheers,
/Eddie

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>

• References:
  • RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Next by Date: Re: An open plea to the W3C (was Re: XInclude vs SAX vs
• Previous by thread: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Next by thread: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread