- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:25:09 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11354 --- Comment #10 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> 2011-03-10 14:25:07 UTC --- Responding to comment #8: Think again about circular override. When A overrides B and B includes A, we can't require B to correspond to a schema, because it'll contain duplicate components, one copy from B itself, and one from B' as a result of A's override. It'll also make it much harder to implement. As MK suggested, ideally override should be performed at the source level, so an implementation can swap the original element with the new one and keep going. Requiring "correspond to a schema" will need a lot more. Now to comment #6: I'm not convinced that we need to impose any constraint on Dold. Why can't I write a "template" schema document with illegal names in them (e.g. "$to_be_replaced") and override it? This looks quite useful to me. Of course, people can use it to hang themselves. Their choice. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:25:10 UTC