> we need to consider the naming of simple types,
Some schemas use different capitalization for simpleTypes and
ComplexTypes. We *may* want to consider it since it's handy for telling
you at a glance what sort of stuff an element can contain (but I'm
mostly agnostic on the idea).
> and complex types that
> contain simple content differ from regular complex types - are RTs used?
The elements vs. attributes paper says that content components are in an
element and supplementary components are in attributes. If we do this,
then most of these elements are going to have to be complex types with
simple content. *If* we have different naming rules for complex types
vs. simple types, which are these? They have aspects of both.
> Should Core Components with simple content be named according to leaf
> rule -
>
> Eve - you had an example of this i think NameId???
In SAML, the NameIdentifier element is bound to a complex type with
simple content, and has attributes. So the "content component" is
roughly a "Text" RT.
Since "Details" and non-"Details" RTs in UBL already don't line up
perfectly with complex vs. simple types, I would assume that we'd want
to use leaf naming for an element such as this.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
