Hi, On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 19:33 -0500, Sir Woody Hackswell wrote: > Wow! You're right! I respectfully disagree with the standard, but it's > what we must follow. Nillable to me meant that it could have a null > value. It seems silly to me to declare that it's empty... because you > can just check if it is or not. =shurg= It's like those manuals that > have "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" written in them. ;)
[...] For the schema processor the character content of <foo></foo> or <foo/> is an empty string; with xsi:nil one defines it to be NIL. So there is a significant difference, i.e. an empty string is different from NIL. Regards, Kasimier _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml