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

RE: ISSUE-19: Advice against using the \'all\' model group

From: <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:49:21 -0800
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org, public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org, sandygao@ca.ibm.com
Message-Id: <OF5F6A064A.C18C6792-ON8825711D.007796CC-8825711D.0077DE3B@KP.ORG>

> I think the thrust is not to preclude aspects of schema, just
> to advise on what works well with tools. So my preference would
> be to cite 'sequence' and 'choice' in the Basic documents and
> not mention 'all' at all, rather than include wording on why
> it should be avoided.

I'm curious...are there data binding tools that have known bugs/problems 
with all groups?  The limitations that schema 1.0 places on all groups 
should be something that all schema authors inform themselves about...but 
I can't see a databinding-specific reason to do that.  Rather, schema 
authors should think long and hard about using 1.0 all groups in the 
schemas simply because their expressivity is so limited...not because 
doing so will cause problems with any binding tool...right?

pvb
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 21:49:43 GMT

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