Basic XMLSchema questions

[Alan Santos]

> Dah!  I'm asleep today... the reason you need <type> is because you can
> specify explicit named types:
>
> <type name="myType">
>   <element name="nestedElement" type="string" />
>   <element name="anotherNestedElement" type="integer" />
> </type>
>
> <element name="myElement" type="myType" />
>
> There is no way without the <type> element construct to specify a name
> for a non-primitive data type without really blowing away any idea of
> congruity across the element space.  So we have the "type" element.
>
> Make sense?
>

Yes it does now.

Syntactically it appears to be legal to simply have <type> on it's own,
outside of any elements.  Is it simply a stylistic difference to define it
inside another element?

thanks,
alan



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)