[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Tolkin, Steve" <Steve.Tolkin@FMR.COM>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 14:26:54 -0500
Below is an an excerpt from the latest XMLScheme.xsd, available from
www.w3c.org/2000/10/XMLSchema.xsd showing the "use" attribute that applies
to attributes.
It can take on 5 possible values: prohibited, optional, required, default,
and fixed.
When is it useful to say "prohibited"? What exactly does fixed mean?
I think I understand the other three values.
# answer attribute must be provided
<attribute name="answer" use="required"/>
# answer attribute can be provided, but if not infoset will have answer="42"
<attribute name="answer" use="default" value="42"/>
# answer attribute can be provided
<attribute name="answer" use="optional"/>
Which of the next two comments is correct?
# answer attribute cannot be provided, and infoset has answer="42"
# answer attribute can be omitted, producing 42; or if provided must have
value 42.
<attribute name="answer" use="fixed" value="42"/>
And when would I ever want to say prohibited? Why would't I just omit the
attribute?
# answser attribute cannot be provided
<attribute name="answer" use="prohibited"/>
<complexType name="attribute">
<complexContent>
<extension base="annotated">
<sequence>
<element name="simpleType" minOccurs="0" type="localSimpleType"/>
</sequence>
<attributeGroup ref="defRef"/>
<attribute name="type" type="QName"/>
<attribute name="use" use="default" value="optional">
<simpleType>
<restriction base="NMTOKEN">
<enumeration value="prohibited"/>
<enumeration value="optional"/>
<enumeration value="required"/>
<enumeration value="default"/>
<enumeration value="fixed"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</attribute>
<attribute name="value" use="optional" type="string"/>
<attribute name="form" type="formChoice"/>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
Thanks,
Steve
--
Steven Tolkin steve.tolkin@fmr.com 617-563-0516
Fidelity Investments 82 Devonshire St. V10D Boston MA 02109
There is nothing so practical as a good theory. Comments are by me,
not Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries or affiliates.
|