xml-dev - Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing versus in-lining

[ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)]

Curt Arnold <CurtA@techie.com> writes:

> Henry Thompson wrote:
> 
> > A misunderstanding on your part: this is specifically allowed, because
> > there is in fact only one tag-type binding in this local context.  In
> > other words, the value of type _does_ matter.
> > 
> 
> You are the master, however I didn't see it in a cursory look at part
> 1.  Is there a specific place in the document that the acceptance of
> duplicate declarations is mentioned?

There's no statement about what's allowed, all there is is a statement 
about what's _not_ allowed [1]:

  "If the {particles} contains, either directly, indirectly (that is,
  within the {particles} of a contained model group, recursively) or
  implicitly two or more element declaration particles with the same
  {name} and {target namespace}, all their {type definition}s must be
  the same."

> If it is, what is the criteria for an acceptible duplicate.  Do they
> have to just match on type and name, or do they have be exact duplicates
> down to the whitespace in the annotation elements?

As above, name, namespace and type definition

> They'd at least need to match on any <appinfo> element since that
> might be used for additional processing.

Why so?  The whole point of Unique Attribution is that you know which
particle accounts for which bit of the input.

> Having to detect when multiple declarations are exactly (or
> sufficiently) identical seems to be unnecessary complexity.

No complexity - - the above identity conditions are all trivial.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#coss-element-consistent
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/