W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2005

Re: XSD feature check-lists

From: <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:28:17 -0700
To: lists@jeffrafter.com
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFBED1DD99.9A3E3451-ON88257053.006A6FCF-88257053.006AF574@KP.ORG>

>>> If someone builds a databinding tool I don't care if they implement 
the 
>>> key/keyref system.
>>
>> Why is key/keyref any less important for a databinding tool?  If a 
>> key/keyref constraint is required for an instance to be meaningful, 
then 
>> why would I want a databinding tool to marshall/unmarshall an instance 
if 
>> it didn't satisfy that constraint?
> 
> Any number of scenarios-- the most likely being that a validation 
> pipeline is in front of the databinding/serialization tool. There are 
> many cases where I don't need or want my data-binding tool verifying the 

> integrity of the data passed to it-- the duplicate checks could be 
> time-consuming. If the tool is designed to consume PSVI than it's 
> early-binding support of features like key/keyref would be pointless.

Given that response, shouldn't you have originally said something like:

        If someone builds a databinding tool I don't care if
        they implement any form of schema validation

rather than signaling out key/keyref?

When I have heard other people make statements like your original they
have always meant "don't need to do key/keyref but must do simple type,
UPA, etc. validation" and that is how I interpreted your original
statement...which is why I asked why key/keyref validation was any less
important than simple type, UPA, etc. validation.

pvb
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 19:33:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:50 GMT