Please don't top-post. Fixed.

puvit82 <puvising@g...> wrote in
<5ec7e626-5e39-495a-96dc-4f76405b9c3e@q...>:
> On Jan 31, 2:35 am, Pavel Lepin <p.le...@ctncorp.com>
> wrote:
>> puvit82 <puvis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Lets suppose that I have defined a simpleType
>> > "addressType" with 3 enumeration values (Home, Office,
>> > Vacation) that restrict data entry. I want to use this
>> > simpleType in 2 different unrelated complexType
>> > definitions, lets call them "personalAddress" and
>> > "companyAddress"
>>
>> > How will I be able to use "addressType" inside
>> > "personalAddress" such that the 3 enumeration values
>> > are taken into consideration, i.e. data entry is
>> > restricted to either one of those three enumeration
>> > values and also use the same "addressType" inside
>> > "companyAddress" such that the enumeration values are
>> > not considered and the user can enter a completely
>> > different value for addressType (such as "HomeOffice"
>> > and the schema validates the XML file)?
>>
>> It's in no way the "same simple type" if in one case it's
>> an enumeration, and in the other case it isn't. Why do
>> you want to use the same type name to designate two
>> vastly different things? To introduce some unnecessary
>> confusion?
>
> pavel, i want to be able to use the same schema type
> because the schema is set and has been communicated to the
> recipients; making a change now will cause them to have to
> update their schema and their mapping code (which is
> something i want to avoid)

You're missing the point. The types are different. You
cannot refer to two different types by just one name.
Either define two types, or use one unconstrained type and
check constraints on the application side.

-- 
<>There is no phenotype</>