W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Implementations/Non-Implementations of xs:redefine?

From: WJ Krpelan <krpelan_wj@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:54:38 -0800 (PST)
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <350714.79264.qm@web52610.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I very much agree with Kay.
Furthermore the restriction/extension mechanism is
rather limited and might not allow everything you
would want to do.
Btw. the Base-Type is kind of overwritten by the
redefinition by altering the contents of the original
namespace, that is you create a secondary meaning to
the original namespace which could in some contexts
lead to scheme-identification problems
(e.g.scheme-caching with xerces).

Wolfgang Krpelan

--- Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com> wrote:

> Michael Kay wrote:
> > I think it's not so much a question of whether
> tools implement redefine or
> > not, it's a question of whether they handle the
> corner cases, and how they
> > handle the cases that are not well-described in
> the specification. Examples
> > are whether two schema documents B and C can both
> redefine A, and under what
> > circumstances those redefinitions can coexist. Or
> what happens if you load a
> > schema incrementally (for example because of
> xsi:schemaLocation) and you've
> > already started validating before you encounter a
> redefinition. Or what
> > happens if you are doing something other than
> straight validation.
> > 
> > I think it would be wise for anyone using
> xs:redefine to check that their
> > usage of it is supported by the tools they
> consider important in their
> > market.
> Yes, that's the essential question, but for a
> standard, the market is 
> "anyone who might use DITA", which is essentially
> anyone who might use 
> XML for any sort of human-readable content.
> I guess the most reasonable thing to do is to create
> a set of 
> DITA-specific test cases that can be used to
> evaluate products' handling 
> of redefine as well as document the limitation in
> using XSD at all for 
> specialization.
> It goes without saying that I've very disappointed
> the xs:override 
> proposal as pushed off for 1.1--that would have made
> things so much 
> easier. But I certainly understand the pressures
> that require those 
> sorts of hard decisions to be made. I, and the
> entire DITA community, 
> certainly appreciate the effort made in putting the
> proposal forward.
> Thanks,
> Eliot
> -- 
> Eliot Kimber
> Senior Solutions Architect
> "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology
> Together"
> Main: 610.631.6770
> www.reallysi.com
> www.rsuitecms.com

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 18:41:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:13 UTC