[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com]
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 12:17, Robert Koberg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was wondering how something like this would be represented in RNG:
> >
> > <xs:complexType name="SiteNode">
> > <xs:sequence>
> > <xs:group ref="lsb:core.elems"/>
> > </xs:sequence>
> > <xs:attributeGroup ref="lsb:navigable.attrs"/>
> > </xs:complexType>
> >
> > <xs:element name="folder">
> > <xs:complexType>
> > <xs:complexContent>
> > <xs:extension base="lsb:SiteNode">
> > <xs:sequence>
> > <xs:group ref="lsb:folder.elems"/>
> > </xs:sequence>
> > </xs:extension>
> > </xs:complexContent>
> > </xs:complexType>
> > </xs:element>
> >
> > Does RNG support extending elements like above?
>
> Yes, since RNG patterns handle both elements and attributes, you can do
> extension just by referencing the base definition. In compact syntax:
>
> SiteNode = core.elems, navigable.attrs
> folder = element folder { SiteNode, folder.elems }
Cool -- and more compact :)
I have to study RNC... After reading the threads here it seems that most
prefer RNC over RNG and by far over XML Schema?
Thanks,
-Rob
>
> James
|