> >schema in another schema. We might use the same type definition in a number
> >of places in our own schema. Then we will be forced to use the same name.
Let's not assume that this is a problem. We're forcing *some*
name-sharing, either by introducing a type name, or by making the element
name shared. Let's be careful before we double the number of names
(element and type), or break inconsistency (to re-use this, ues the
element, but to re-use that, use the type). For example, container
elements avoid the problem, at the cost of one extra level of nesting. It
is often more clear to say
<dss:SigningKey><ds:KeyInfo>...
then to say
<dss:SigningKey>...
and have to read the schema to know that it's a dsig:KeyInfo element.
/r$
--
Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
