- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:21:28 +0100
- To: "'Paul Kiel'" <paul@xmlhelpline.com>, "'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@mitre.org>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> > Of course maybe I have this all wrong. Perhaps the lack of > rules will give some freedom and lead to some interesting > implementations of this underused feature. I would love to > see that happen. Personally I suspect that with XSD 1.1, most restricted types will be specified not by providing a restricted grammar, but by using the original grammar in conjunction with assertions. For example, if you want to disallow an optional element from the content model, it's much easier to assert that the element is absent than to define a restricted grammar in which it is omitted. Regards, Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 17:22:12 UTC