[LC-2174] RE: EXI LC Comments

Hi Youenn,

Any named simple types can be used as the names of the first elements in
datatype representation maps, as long as they are defined in the schema.
So, "mystring" type defined in your example schema snippet can be used in
datatype representation maps, in no less interoperable manner than built-in
xsd datatypes can be used.

The note given at the end of section 7.4 is about the mechanism of sharing
user-defined datatype representation, not about the types. Schemas are
supposed to be shared among the parties before exchanging documents, so
the types in the schemas are shared knowledge at that point as xsd built-in
types also are. The note only warns that extra caution should be paid before
sending documents that use user-defined datatype representation to make sure
the recipient knows how to decode the value that was encoded using that
custom representation. We plan to improve some language there to make
it clear that it is about user-defined datatype representations.

Thanks!

-taki

________________________________

From: public-exi-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-exi-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of FABLET Youenn
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:16 AM
To: public-exi-comments@w3.org
Subject: EXI LC Comments

3) DataTypeRepresentationType question

I would like a confirmation of the current DataTypeRepresentationType behaviour.
Let's have a schema with the following attribute definition:

  <xs:attribute name="test" type="xs:string"/>

In that case, the only way to change the encoding for @test1 values with
the DataTypRepresentationType feature

is to redefine xs:string which may have great impact.

If we only want to change the @test values with the DataTypRepresentationType
feature, we would need to

change the schema as follow:

  <xs:simpleType name="mystring">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:string"/>
  </xs:simpleType>

  <xs:attribute name="test" type="mystring"/>

DataTypeRepresentationType could then be used to redefine mystring.

Is it correct?

If so, the interoperability will generally be lost, since interoperable
DataTypeRepresentationType use is currently limited to XML Schema part 2
predefined types redefinition (end of section 7.4).

What about extending that behaviour to all simple types that have been
gathered by consuming the schema in use?

Is there any rationale behind that specific constraint?

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 20:15:16 UTC