Actually, it's pretty loose. I recently saw a schema where the copyfield was interspersed with <field> definitions in the <fields> tag, the code just uses the DOM to collect all the leaf nodes sometimes.
There's been talk occasionally about creating a schema/DTD/whatever but the general consensus has been that people see way more cost than value, especially when you consider that custom components can have their own characteristics.. Best Erick On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 1/5/2013 2:32 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > >> Does schema.xml has a formal XML schema? In other words, what are the >> restrictions on the order in which declarations inside the file happen. >> >> I have seen some examples where types come before fields and some where it >> is reversed. Some with copyFields separate and some where they seem to be >> intermixed. >> > > The order of fields and types was intentionally reversed in newer examples > because they wanted a beginner to readily see the fields when they look at > the example. With the fieldType entries first, the actual field > information can get a little lost. I seem to remember seeing a message > from Yonik about this reversal either on the dev list or in a Jira issue, > but now I can't find it. > > I don't think order matters much for the major sections. My addled brain > seems to remember something about copyField directives being processed in > the order they appear, but I could be wrong about that part. > > In my own config, copyField entries are at the end. Looking at the newest > 4x example, they are between fields and types. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
