[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Alan Santos" <asantos@odi.com>
- To: "Brett McLaughlin" <bmclaugh@algx.net>, <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:57:16 -0500
> 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@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
