- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:41:51 -0400
- To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Pete Cordell asks (regarding wildcards): > What is the justification for the currently specified set of rules? Imagine a container format like SOAP. Is it not possible that somewhere in the descendents of the body element it should allow the appearance of another soap envelope? The most basic wildcard is therefore one that accepts absolutely anything, including instances of elements that are declared in the schema. You can also make the case that it's not entirely unacceptable even in the cases we're discussing: if the first "middle" name matches an element reference particle, and a 2nd matches the wildcard, many APIs will expose that to the application. The application can then either ignore it, reject it, or give it some meaning as appropriate. Nonetheless, it was because we realized that some users would want more help from the content model itself that we are likely to propose the notQName="##defined" construct (which, by the way, is known informally in the workgroup and in some blog postings I think as the "Not In Schema" or NIS wildcard. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:42:53 UTC