Re: Defining recursive elements?

Hi,

Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> writes:

> 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>
>
> </xs:schema>

Note that this change will result in a different schema if there
was a target namespace involved. In the original example, both
elements are qualified while in this schema the global one would
be qualified while the local one wouldn't.


Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> writes:

> ... 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).

I don't think this design would cause any problems in data binding since
most tools would translate types to classes and there is only one type
involved. The local part element would normally end up being translated
to a member function in that class while the global one could be mapped
to something that can parse a document (e.g., a global function).

hth,
-boris


--
Boris Kolpackov
Code Synthesis Tools CC
http://www.codesynthesis.com
Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding