W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2009

RE: [XML Schema 1.1] Is vc:type(Un)Available and vc:facet(Un)Available redundant?

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:24:58 +0100
To: "'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@mitre.org>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7D6A043B8BC4628BE2B42FFEBAE6916@Sealion>

In XSD 1.1, vendors are allowed to add their own types and facets. This
mechanism allows you to include conditional code depending on the presence
of these implementor-defined types and facets. As with function-available()
in XSLT, it also allows finer-grained control if you expect to be running on
processors (like Saxon 9.2) that implement some new features of XSD 1.1 but
not all.

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Costello, Roger L.
> Sent: 29 June 2009 16:04
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: [XML Schema 1.1] Is vc:type(Un)Available and 
> vc:facet(Un)Available redundant?
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> If I specify vc:minVersion and vc:maxVersion doesn't that 
> dictate what types and facets are available?
> 
> For example, if I specify vc:minVersion="1.1" and 
> vc:maxVersion="1.1" doesn't that mean 
> vc:typeAvailable="xs:precisionDecimal" and 
> vc:facetAvailable="xs:assert" are true?
> 
> It occurs to me that vc:type(Un)Available and 
> vc:facet(Un)Available are never needed; my desires can always 
> be specified just by using vc:minVersion and vc:maxVersion. 
> Do you agree?
> 
> /Roger
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 15:25:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:12 GMT