[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Confirmation: the syntax of the <data> pattern.
> I understand that <data> pattern is defined as attached (at the moment.) > > Please let me know if something is wrong with it. I think you should use xsd:NCName instead of xsd:Name. I did param slightly differently: <element name="param"> <attribute name="name"> <data type="xsd:NCName"/> </attribute> <mixed> <ref name="other"/> </mixed> </element> Your way is OK too. I guess we should have an issue on whether <name> and <param> allow elements from other namespaces. Also "other" currently includes a <zeroOrMore>. > One question: > > @key and @keyref are exclusive? I can't imagine a situation where both > are used at the same time, but certainly it doesn't do any harm. I guess it's easier to allow it. > Another question: > > Is there any chance that @type is introduced for <attribute>? That > would be just a short cut for > > <attribtue><data type="..."/></attribute> > > I'm not sure if I really want to have this.... I don't like this. I think it's a slippery slope. If we add a type to attribute, then we'll need to add a type attribute to element; then we'll need to add key/keyRef attributes as well; then we'll need to allow param children. James
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC