<usenet@t...> wrote in message 
news:a073fe5d-f0c4-4b72-9e13-44bd32f62df8@i......
On 27 Feb, 14:33, use...@tech-know-ware.com wrote:
> Thus the minimum becomes someting like:
>
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
> <xs:element name = "HelloWho" type="xs:string"/>
> </xs:schema>

Taking a slightly different tack, I think if you make it a goal to
understand that the following schema:

<xs:schema xmlns:xs = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
  <xs:element name="Say">
    <xs:complexType>
        <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element name="What" type="xs:string"/>
        </xs:sequence>
        <xs:attribute name="HowLoud" type="xs:int"/>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>
</xs:schema>

yields XML instances of the form:

<Say HowLoad='11'>
    <What>Hello World!</What>
</Say>

then you're a long why towards understanding XML schema.  As such,
while it's not the simplest schema (and not necessarily the first that
an instructor would present), IMO it's one of the simplest that yields
insightful information.

--------

Exactly!  There's a fine line between "the simplest" and "the simplest that 
provides insight", which was what I was trying to point out to the OP. 
Without knowing what the OP's sticking point was though, it's difficult to 
decide which element information items to show him in a sample and which 
ones to leave out.