W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2005

Suggestions For XML Schema 1.1

From: Robert Nielsen <robertnielsen@nc.rr.com>
Date: 06 Mar 2005 17:57:46 -0700
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20050209193141.0258e3e8@pop-server.nc.rr.com>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org




Dear Sirs:

The "ALL" construct is very useful in my work ... I use it "all the time" 
(pun intended) to represent sets of attributes contained in a class or 
interface.   While I understand that restrictions were made to keep ALL 
constructs from being unmanageable, I think it would be very useful to 
allow *extensions* to ALL constructs in specific ways.   For example, if I 
represented class A (which contains 5 attributes) with an ALL group with 5 
contained elements, I would like to represent class B (which is a subclass 
of A and which adds 3 attributes) with another ALL group that only 
contained the additional 3 elements and that references the ALL group for 
class A as a base.

Does this make sense?   I don't want to open up a bag of worms, and I don't 
think I am.   I just want to be able to add more "possibilities" to the ALL 
group in a derived complex type.

Thanks for the consideration,

Robert Nielsen
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 01:02:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:07 GMT