> Furthermore, I do think that the semantic of RNG
>
> <define name="barPattern">
> <element name="bar">
> .../...
> </element>
> </define>
Hmm. Given the above pattern and a reference <ref name="barPattern"/>,
there are (at least) three possibilities:
1. <xs:group ref="barPattern"/>
<xs:group name="barPattern">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="bar">
...
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:group>
2. <xs:element ref="bar"/>
<xs:element name="bar">
...
</xs:element>
3. <xs:group ref="barPattern"/>
<xs:group name="barPattern">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="bar"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:group>
<xs:element name="bar">
...
</xs:element>
Currently I generate either 1 or 2 depending on whether I decided to make
that particular element pattern global. My feeling was that 2 would result
in a more natural XML Schema (which I admit is very subjective). Another
reason is that 1 and 3 (I think) don't work in an xs:all whereas 2 does.
Another complication is what to do with something like
inline = element code|em|b|i { ... }
James
