----- Original Message From: "Boris Kolpackov" <...>


> Hi,
>
> Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...> writes:
>
>> Well it's a matter of taste, but if you use the venetian blind style
>> of schema then you wouldn't use element ref="" much, but @type
>> instead, eg:
>>
>> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>>
>>  <xs:element name="part" type="part"/>
>>
>>  <xs:complexType name="part">
>>    <xs:sequence>
>>      <xs:element name="part" type="part" minOccurs="0"
>>      maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>>    </xs:sequence>
>>    <xs:attribute name="serial" type="xs:string"/>
>>  </xs:complexType>
>>
>> </xs:schema>
>
> Note that this change will result in a different schema if there
> was a target namespace involved. In the original example, both
> elements are qualified while in this schema the global one would
> be qualified while the local one wouldn't.


Although, just to clarify for those that are a bit fuzzy about namespaces in 
schema, commonly if people define a schema that specifies a target 
namespace, 9 times out of 10 they will also make 
elementFormDefault="qualified".  Hence all elements will end up qualified 
and the same result can be achieved.

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit
 http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
 http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================



From petexmldev@t... Thu May 17 22:07:29 2007
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([12