• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:04:39 -0500
• Importance: Normal
• Reply-to: <bob@w...>

I appeal to the gods of XML, schemas, etc. to clarify an issue
concerning XML Schema use...

In the CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) specification[1], there are a
number of element definitions that look something like the following:

<element name = "msgType">
 <simpleType name = "msgType" >
 <restriction base = "string">
   ...
 </restriction>
 </simpleType>
</element>

I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that the "simpleType" element above
should not have a name attribute. i.e. it should be simply:
"<simpleType>..." I note that the .NET XSD editor simply rewrites such
named types to anonymous types in the editor. Other schema editors
complain about the name attributes, however, it is reported that the
XSD tools that come with Axis require that the name attribute be
present. 

What is the *correct* coding of this schema? Should the <simpleType>
elements in this situation have name attributes? If not, then is it
that they MUST not have them, or is it that they SHOULD or MAY not
have them? (I can't find the spot in the XML Schema spec which would
address this issue...

		bob wyman

[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5666/emergency-CAP-1
.0.pdf

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
  • RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Is Microsoft Bollixing Up XAML?
• Next by Date: parse the xml data and then display it
• Previous by thread: Is Microsoft Bollixing Up XAML?
• Next by thread: RE: XML Schema Question: named or anonymous types in element definition?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread