«

there will be no multiple occurence of a simple level , but since i will load the xml , it'll be nice if i had just to check it against the xsd to assure that there is no holes in the level (no missing level 5 per example) and not checking it inside the program .

On 3/23/2011 1:32 PM, eephyne wrote:
> there will be no multiple occurence of a simple level , but since i
> will load the xml , it'll be nice if i had just to check it against
> the xsd to assure that there is no holes in the level (no missing
> level 5 per example) and not checking it inside the program .

Think of schemas as providing higher-level _syntax_ constraints. In most
cases, an application which wishes to impose semantic constraints such
as this one will have to do so itself. And that's entirely reasonable;
the range of possible semantic constraints is essentially unbounded. A
limit had to be set somewhere, and to prevent scope creep it was set at
the level of datatypes.

Of course if you have control of both the code generating the XML and
the code consuming the XML, you may not need to explicitly enforce the
semantic constraints at all.


--
Joe Kesselman,
http://www.love-song-productions.com...lam/index.html

{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign | "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" --
/\ Stamp out HTML mail! | "Put down the squeezebox & nobody gets hurt."

I'd also agree that, if you just want things numbered sequentially, it
would make more sense to compute the number from context rather than
inserting the number into the document. XPath/XSLT/XQuery will be glad
to find you the Nth sibling instance, for example.


--
Joe Kesselman,
http://www.love-song-productions.com...lam/index.html

{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign | "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" --
/\ Stamp out HTML mail! | "Put down the squeezebox & nobody gets hurt."