At 12:10 AM 12/19/01 -0400, Chris McLaren wrote:
>Since my discussion with Scott I've been trying to look into the point
>he raises--that instead of having AttributeValue typed as an any we type
>it as a sequence of elements, each of which is an any, and thus we can't
>do single values.
>
>My research has turned up little either way, but I think what he says
>makes sense. Anyone who knows more about XML Schema (Eve, I'm looking at
>you!) speak up.
>
>My inclination would be to remove the AttributeValue type and set the
>type of AttributeValue directly to the anyType. This would removes
>nothing functionally from the AttributeValue and allows us to do the
>sort of direct xsi:type-ing that I mention in my earlier posts.
I agree with this. In the earlier thread explaining the "trick", I had
missed the fact that we don't, yet, define AttributeValue as anyType.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
