So I have the following, which validates. This is close enough to what I was 
thinking of. Other people will have other opinions and I can respect many 
alternatives. It is myopinion that it helps to start a schema tutorial with 
a sample such as this. I assume tutorial authors will have their own 
version.

I added a noNamespaceSchemaLocation. It is not clear to me what the 
difference is between that and SchemaLocation, but I have not made enough 
effort to figure that out so I am not asking for an explanation.


Schema
============
<?xml version = "1.0"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:element name = "item" />
</xsd:schema>

Document
============
<?xml version = "1.0"?>
<item xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
 xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="HelloWorld.xsd"
 >
Hello World!!!
</item>


"Mike C#" <xyz@x...> wrote in message 
news:e9pMj9zeIHA.4696@T......
> As mentioned, the XML document below is valid against the XML schema I 
> provided on SQL 2005, and should validate with any XML Schema processor.
>
> "Sam Hobbs" <samuel@s...> wrote in message 
> news:O6vBEXjeIHA.4140@T......
>> Yes, that is a good Hello World document. Does the sample schema work for 
>> that document? If not, then what would the schma be for it?
>>
>>
>> "Mike C#" <xyz@x...> wrote in message 
>> news:OYNGddaeIHA.5164@T......
>>> BTW, in SQL Server (which may not be accurate in their implementation of 
>>> this particular feature), the XML Schema does not allow complex content 
>>> in the item element.  On SQL 2005 the example XML doc. fails validation 
>>> at the foo element.  However, an XML document like this is valid on SQL 
>>> 2005:
>>>
>>> <?xml version = "1.0"?>
>>> <item>Hello World!!!</item>
>>>
>>> <usenet@t...> wrote in message 
>>> news:39f2ba8e-8b82-4bd2-8325-22f3a8bf8050@p......
>>> On 26 Feb, 06:22, "Mike C#" <x...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> XML Schema
>>>> ============
>>>> <?xml version = "1.0"?>
>>>> <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>>>> <xsd:element name = "item" />
>>>> </xsd:schema>
>>>>
>>>> Valid document
>>>> ============
>>>> <?xml version = "1.0"?>
>>>> <item />
>>>>
>>>> See what I mean about it being fairly uninteresting?
>>>
>>> Although note that in this case the valid XML instance can be much
>>> more interesting :-)
>>>
>>> I mention it because it's quite easy to assume that the schema
>>> declares an empty element and so might mislead some beginners looking
>>> at this post.  In fact the default type for an element declaration is
>>> xs:anyType.  So the following is also a valid XML instance:
>>>
>>> <item><foo bar="a"><e1>hg></e1></foo><bar/></item>
>>>
>>> and, of course so, are many others.
>>>
>>> There's a couple of idioms to specify empty elements.  The only I
>>> prefer is an empty compleType, along the lines of:
>>>
>>> <xs:element name='item'>
>>>    <xs:complexType/>
>>> </xs:element>
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Pete Cordell
>>> Codalogic
>>> For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>