RE: Defining recursive elements?

> 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>
> 

I'm not sure it's just a matter of taste. It feels wrong to me to have two
element declarations for element part, one global and one local, when all
the part elements are the same. It gives the same answers as far as
validation of instances is concerned, but it seems a messier component
model, which could give you a messier translation into classes when you do
data binding, for example (I don't know if that's actually the case).

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/