[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I agree. The biggest shortcoming I have trouble with is the lack of any
if then construct. i.e.
Taking the example you gave -
You can't say if <ParentNode> has @flavour='B' Then only allow child
elements of type <B>.
Tall order I know, but something I come up against on a daily basis.
Max
Bryce K. Nielsen wrote:
>The interesting thing with W3C's schema language is that since they've taken
>a more OOP approach, there are many different ways you can write schemas to
>validate a specific document, it's all up to your style. What I read from
>the original poster was a schema that would validate the following XML:
>
><ParentNode>
> <A/>
> <B/>
> <A/>
> <A/>
> <B/>
> <A/>
> <A/>
> <B/>
> <B/>
> <!-- and many more -->
></ParentNode>
>
>The schema I whipped up would validate that instance. My schema is
>definately not all inclusive though, as you described. I tend to avoid
>xsd:choice nodes, as is my style, which was why my first instinct was to
>have a sequence with optional children. I could have easily done a schema
>with two optional sequences that had one of each node. Or choice too. It's
>all up to the schema author to decide which practices he/she wishes to
>follow.
>
>Bryce K. Nielsen
>SysOnyx, Inc. (www.sysonyx.com)
>Makers of xmlArchitect, the Smart XML Schema Editor
>(http://www.sysonyx.com/products/xmlarchitect)
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>
|
