W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:58:10 -0400
To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
Cc: "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB025C854.EEE73AB4-ON852572B9.0067B8EB-852572B9.00680214@lotus.com>

Michael Kay writes:

> So in this sense you're right: I'm trying to find rules that allow the
> schema as a whole to be extended while retaining confidence that the
> assumptions I made at query compile time relating to type-
> safety are still
> true when the query is executed. I'm trying to do this by 
> freezing the parts
> of the schema on which compiled queries depend.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, <xs:redefine> is completely incompatible with 
this model, at least in the case that the redefine shows up as a result of 
resolving the schemaLocation.  Given that things like redefine are in the 
langauge and need to be handled in a conforming implementation, I'm not 
sure why something like a Not In Schema wildcard is more than a minor 
additional compliction with respect to the goal you've set.  Or is query 
making the assumption that, even in the face of a redefine doing an 
extension, the derivation supplied by a redefinition can be ignored?

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 18:57:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:59 GMT