schemas: why no local type bindings?

james anderson James.Anderson at
Thu Jan 6 11:32:42 GMT 2000

i'm working my way into schemas and found the distinction between anonymous
and names types baroque. i need to read further to see what named types can
mean, beyond that which the equivalent entity based definitions would have accomplished.

given, however, that they exist, why pray-tell would one then proscribe local
definitions? wouldn't there just as well be cases where such resemblances
would occur within elements as well as at a global level?

> > Finally, the last permutation:
> >
> > <element name="element1">
> >   <type name="type1">
> >     <element name="element2" type="string" />
> >   </type>
> > </element>
> >
> > is legal, and the type is referenceable by other elements, but is bad
> > form (IMHO).  If you have a type that will be used multiple times, put
> > it on its own (explicit type).  If it is only used once, use an implicit
> > type within the element definition.  Things like this are very
> > confusing.
> First real misunderstanding:  this is NOT allowed:  only top-level
> types can have names.  Again, the schema for schemas expresses this
> constraint.

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