Basic XMLSchema questions

Alan Santos asantos at
Wed Jan 5 23:10:35 GMT 2000

> >
> > Syntactically it appears to be legal to simply have <type> on it's own,

Sorry, I meant to say <type name='xxx'>,  I'm pretty clear on type now.
Thanks very much.

You may have missed another question in a previous email....

At one point you had made a critical remark regarding XML schema to model a

"Your schema is one-to-one with a Java class?  This wouldn't be a good
idea, unless I'm misunderstanding your intent.  Maybe your _XML_ is
based on a class, and it specifies the class, but then multiple XML docs
(therefore multiple classes) all use the same Schema."

Originally, this is what I was trying to use an XML Schema to do (that is:
store class info), and use an XML document to store instance values. (Sort
of a simplified XMI)

I'm not sure I can do this, in any manner that doesn't break XML schemas.
There doesn't appear to be a mechanism in place to expand the functionality
of XML-Schemas

But if it is possible, I'm interested in why you feel this is a bad idea?

(BTW, I think this is similar to what was done with Quick)

Finally, .


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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list