W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > February 2006

Re: ISSUE-20: Extension of collections

From: Ed Day <edday@obj-sys.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:18:42 -0500
Message-ID: <052f01c6371b$a0c68fd0$4800000a@objsys1>
To: "Databinding WG" <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

The problem with this approach is that it requires the user to embed the
<extension> element within the instance being extended.  This is not what
happens in the real world.  What happens is additional elements just show
up.

Also, what happens if the schema is extended a 2nd time?  Do you have an
extension in an extension?  Or maybe the "extension" element should have
some kind of version number on the end to track when an extension happened
(<extension1>, <extension2>, etc.)?

Regards,

Ed Day
Objective Systems, Inc.
http://www.obj-sys.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Databinding Issue Tracker" <dean+cgi@w3.org>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: ISSUE-20: Extension of collections


>
>
> ISSUE-20: Extension of collections
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/20
>
> Raised by: Paul Downey
> On product: Basic
>
> The input document offers the following pattern for a collection
> which is open to extension, thereby being useful when evolving
> or extending a schema during versioning:
>
> """
> <xs:complexType name="CustomerType">
>   <xs:sequence>
>     <xs:element name="firstName" type="xs:string" />
>     <xs:element name="lastName" type="xs:string" />
>     <xs:element name="extension" type="tns:CustomerExtensionType"
minOccurs="0" />
>   </xs:sequence>
>   <xs:anyAttribute/>
> </xs:complexType>
>
> <xs:complexType name="CustomerExtensionType">
>   <xs:sequence>
>     <xs:any processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
>           namespace="##targetNamespace"/>
>     </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
>
> """
>
> How well is this pattern supported by tools - does it belong in
> the Basic patterns document?
>
> Are there authoring issues with this pattern we should warn about?
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 19:16:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:36 GMT