Eddie,
> I may be on thin ice here but I don't think this is correct. If you use
> derivation using the above syntax you're not reordering the elements.
Instead
> you are extending the type to allow for all the elements in the base type
I believe you are right. I think that Martin's intent was to use a
restriction element instead of an extension element (correct me if I am
wrong). This would make his example:
<complexType name="BookTypePlusReviewer">
<complexContent>
<restriction base="c:BookType" >
<sequence>
<element name="Reviewer" type="string"/>
<element name="Title" type="string"/>
<element name="Author" type="string"/>
<element name="Date" type="year"/>
<element name="ISBN" type="string"/>
<element name="Publisher" type="string"/>
</sequence>
</restriction>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
I think this is a solid additional solution to the problem-- unfortunately I
don't what side I am on for "Best Practices". It seems as though the size
of the restriction declaration would grow exponentially with each additional
restriction. On the other hand (OTOH) utilizing the <any> element doesn't
give the same control. For example in Roger's original message, using:
<any namespace="##any" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2"/>
at the top of the sequence seems to be a good idea until you consider
multiple layers of inheritance-- then you realize that a more extensive (no
pun intended) solution is needed. So I guess this leaves me rooting for the
restriction and wishing there was another way.
Regards,
Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems