Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Alan Santos" <email@example.com>
- To: "Brett McLaughlin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:15:41 -0500
> > Syntactically it appears to be legal to simply have <type> on it's own,
Sorry, I meant to say <type name='xxx'>, I'm pretty clear on type now.
Thanks very much.
You may have missed another question in a previous email....
At one point you had made a critical remark regarding XML schema to model a
"Your schema is one-to-one with a Java class? This wouldn't be a good
idea, unless I'm misunderstanding your intent. Maybe your _XML_ is
based on a class, and it specifies the class, but then multiple XML docs
(therefore multiple classes) all use the same Schema."
Originally, this is what I was trying to use an XML Schema to do (that is:
store class info), and use an XML document to store instance values. (Sort
of a simplified XMI)
I'm not sure I can do this, in any manner that doesn't break XML schemas.
There doesn't appear to be a mechanism in place to expand the functionality
But if it is possible, I'm interested in why you feel this is a bad idea?
(BTW, I think this is similar to what was done with Quick)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)