Re: What would be the consequence of prohibiting local element and attribute declarations?

Can I just retract:
> Using definitions like "Simple" seems to be unavoidable.

You can obviously avoid it in the context shown, and the "Simple" form can 
just be treated as a variation of the "ComplexType" form in the rest of the 
discussion.

Thanks,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Cordell" <[email protected]>
To: "Costello, Roger L." <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: What would be the consequence of prohibiting local element and 
attribute declarations?


>
> Original Message From: "Costello, Roger L."
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> Taking the following as an example...
>
> <xs:element name="MyElement">
>    <xs:complexType>
>        <xs:sequence>
>            <xs:element name="Simple" type="xs:int"/>
>            <xs:element name="ComplexType" type="MyComplexType"/>
>            <xs:element ref="ComplexRef"/>
>            <xs:element name="ComplexLocal">
>                <xs:complexType>
>                    <xs:sequence>
>                        <xs:element name="another" type="xs:int"/>
>                    </xs:sequence>
>                </xs:complexType>
>            </xs:element>
>        </xs:sequence>
>    </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
>
> Are you saying what are the implications of only allowing definitions as 
> for "ComplexRef"?
>
> I would say the definitions of "Simple", "CompleType" and "ComplexRef" are 
> all sensible ways to go.  "ComplexLocal" should be avoided.
>
> Using definitions like "Simple" seems to be unavoidable.
>
> In principle there's not much to choose between "CompleType" and 
> "ComplexRef", so it's worth deciding which mechanism you're going to use 
> and be consistent.
>
> Some of the differences come into play when crossing XML namespace 
> boundaries.  Using "CompleType" the parent would have a name in the 
> 'importing' namespace and the children would be in the 'imported' 
> namespace, whereas with "ComplexRef" both parent and children would be in 
> the 'imported' namespace which seems more natural.
>
> But using the "ComplexRef" form would mean that every element called 
> "Name" would have to have the same definition irrespective of whether it 
> was a person's name (which may have given and family name sub-components) 
> or a building name etc.
>
> So my suggestion is to use the "CompleType" form within a namespace, and 
> the "ComplexRef" across namespace boundaries.
>
> (Not quite the question you asked, but I hope you can pick something out 
> of it!)
>
> HTH,
>
> Pete Cordell
> Codalogic Ltd
> Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++
> data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
> Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
> for more info
> =============================================
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Costello, Roger L." <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:03 PM
> Subject: What would be the consequence of prohibiting local element and 
> attribute declarations?
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Suppose a team has this XML Schema design policy:
>
>   No local element or attribute declarations
>   are permitted. All elements and attributes
>   must be globally declared.
>
> This policy strips the XML Schema language of a significant functionality. 
> What are the consequences? Specifically what things will not be 
> expressible because of this policy? Would this policy result in the 
> creation of XML Schemas that don't integrate with other XML technologies?
>
> /Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>