xml-dev - RE: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining

[nchen <nchen@webmethods.com>]

>> All that is required is that the two 'b' elements have the same type.
Excellent. Part 1, Section 3.7, talks about this, "when two or more element
declarations with the same identity occur at any level within a model group,
their type definitions must be the same"

'must be same' is a strong phrase. But, in my reading I found that the
schema specs do not talk about 'equality of types'. If the processor does
not know anything about equality of types, how would it prove that these two
type definitions are the same. Hence, I infer that it is impossible to
create such a valid model. I am willing to listen.

Thank you for your help.
Ninggang

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:12 AM
To: Martin Bryan
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: XML Schemas: ref'ing vs inlining


"Martin Bryan" <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com> writes:

> From
> >
> > Section 5.13 (schema constraints):
> >
> > 2  Each of the {type definitions}, {element declarations}, {attribute
> > group definitions}, {model group definitions} and {notation
> > declarations} must not contain two or more schema components with the
> > same {name} and {target namespace}.
>
> am I right in inferring that a  valid XML content model of (a, b, c, b)
cannot be expressed using a schema?

Don't panic!  Of course you can have such content models.  All that is
required is that the two 'b' elements have the same type.

ht
--
  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/