• To: Brian Speight <bspeight@t...>
• Subject: Re: XML Schema: nillable vs. minOccurs
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:32:53 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3F2E62790250AF4485864348F7E9F6B001432EC6@s...>
• References: <3F2E62790250AF4485864348F7E9F6B001432EC6@s...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Brian Speight scripsit:

> I'm looking for advice on usage of nillable vs. minOccurs. When you
> have an element that is optional should you use "nillable=true" or
> "minOccurs=0" or both? Using both seems to make things more complicated
> than necessary.

They mean two different things.  For a truly optional element, one that is
allowed to be absent altogether, minoccurs="0" is what you want.  Nillable
means that the element can be present without its normal content, provided
that xsi:nil="true" is one of its attributes.

-- 
Do NOT stray from the path!             John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
        --Gandalf                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• References:
  • XML Schema: nillable vs. minOccurs
    • From: "Brian Speight" <bspeight@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: OCLC turns evil (was ISO turns evil?)
• Next by Date: Re: relax ng public list?
• Previous by thread: XML Schema: nillable vs. minOccurs
• Next by thread: RE: XML Schema: nillable vs. minOccurs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread