ORA-00904 on create table with xmltype column

Question

Hi,
I am trying to create a table with syntax
CREATE TABLE ss_test(docid integer primary key, content varchar2(4000),acl XMLType)
XMLType column acl store as object relational
XMLSchema "acl.xsd" element "acl"
varray xmldata."ace" store as table ace_tab;
and getting ORA-00904.
acl.xsd is registered as
begin
dbms_xmlschema.registerschema('acl.xsd',
' <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xdb="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb">
<xs:element name="acl" xdb:SQLType="ACL_TYPE">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="ace" maxOccurs="100">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:integer"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>',true,true,false,false);
end;
Couldnt figure out whats wrong with the syntax. Any pointers ?
Thanks,
Rakesh

Answer 1

Hmmmm ... I don't know if I should smile or frown with the implication that I am an OO guy :D :D
Most of my colleagues when I started working as a software engineer, treated me as too low-level because of my C background (started doing C in 1985).
In my last job, my colleagues hated my guts because I was asking them to squeeze every bit of performance out of C++ by using STL which is definitely not OO (although C++ is).
My current colleagues treat me as a DB guru (which I most definitely am not) and they overlook/forget the fact that most of them use Java libraries in their projects, that I wrote for them !
I am inclined to believe that I do not fall into any category in the end...
The only thing I am for sure - and I am proud of it - is inquisitive. I want to know everything there is about the tools I use, and so I end up spending hours and hours investigating... (Microsoft found that out the hard way when I filed 16 bug reports in 8 days when Visual C++ 6 came out ! Not that it hurt them though...)
This is where my confession ends (and my working on the XML validator starts...)
Καληνύχτα Marco
Philip (Φίλιππος in Greek)
PS: I did not follow the last solution anyway. I just wanted to verify its operability ;)