Thanks for the analogy-- I see your point.  I guess that's why XML
Schema 1.0 doesn't allow it.  I my case, I guess the way to avoid this
from a design standpoint is to get rid of the common generalized element
names and use the data that I currently have in the attributes for the
element names.  However, it seems that if I do it that way then my
"word" type and "field" type go away, and I think there is value in
having those "types".


Jeffrey King
Northrop Grumman
(703) 561-4965

-----Original Message-----
From: Nassar, Anthony [mailto:ANassar@H...] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:12 AM
To: King, Jeffrey (Mission Systems); xmlschema-dev@w...
Subject: RE: Repeating elements with fixed attribute values

You wouldn't expect a programming language to allow you declare a type
"word" that aggregates a collection of "field" objects, but the data in
the latter can only be what the type declaration allows (or, reducing it
even more, you wouldn't expect to be able to declare an array type *and*
declare what values have to be at certain locations). On that analogy,
anyway, the design you're proposing is trying to accomplish two
unrelated things. 

From boris@c... Sat Jan 05 15:34:54 2008
Received: from