On 18/03/2008, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
>
>  > What's the best way to model "element with text content and
>  > attributes"?  For example:
>  >
>  > <foo bar="b" baz="b"> only text allowed </foo>
>  >
>  > I've used this before, but it seems bulky:
>  >
>  > <xs:complexType name="foo">
>  >     <xs:simpleContent>
>  >         <xs:extension base="xs:string">
>  >             <xs:attribute name="bar" type="xs:string"/>
>  >             <xs:attribute name="baz" type="xs:string"/>
>  >         </xs:extension>
>  >     </xs:simpleContent>
>  > </xs:complexType>
>  >
>  >
>  > This thread has suggested you can do this:
>  >
>  >  <xs:complexType name="foo" mixed="true">
>  >     <xs:attribute name="bar" type="xs:string"/>
>  >     <xs:attribute name="baz" type="xs:string"/>  </xs:complexType>
>  >
>  > Is that right?   If so, is that shorthand for the above?
>
>
> They are two types that will validate the same set of instances, but they
>  are not equivalent. For example, the first one can be restricted to create
>  another type with a pattern or enumeration facet, the second one can't. They
>  will also generate a different PSVI, and have different behaviour in
>  schema-aware queries and stylesheets (one will atomize to xs:string, the
>  other to xs:untypedAtomic).
>
>  I would avoid using mixed content except where both child elements and child
>  text nodes are allowed.

Ahh ok, thanks.  The "official" way is the former version - worth
checking because its a long way from intuitive.


-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

From jobsqeu@y... Thu Mar 20 04:20:35 2008
Received: from farnsworth.w3.org ([128.30.52.43])