• From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
• To: Alex Muir <alex.g.muir@g...>
• Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:57:31 +0530

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Alex Muir <alex.g.muir@g...> wrote:
> This I would think is the kind of thing you wouldn't do. It would be
> better to stick to one or the other and perhaps better to use an
> element for readability as the number of attributes increase. Don't
> forget that an optional choice like this means more programming in
> that a case now is required to check which one exists and perhaps an
> error check to make sure they don't both exist.

My example wasn't specified exactly, to create the best possible
schema design for the sample use-case I proposed (your suggestion is
perhaps better). I was suggesting a use-case, where a certain concern
of the schema author requires the notion of "optional" XML items
necessary.



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

• References:
  • What does "optional" mean?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: What does "optional" mean?
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: What does "optional" mean?
    • From: Alex Muir <alex.g.muir@g...>