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: Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:30:37 -0400
To: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9E51F88D5247B648908850C35A3BBB500400458C2A@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
 
> In XSD 1.1, vendors are allowed to add  
> their own types and facets.

Wow!

I totally missed that in the specification. Would you point me to the section that discusses this please?

/Roger




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:25 AM
> To: Costello, Roger L.; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [XML Schema 1.1] Is vc:type(Un)Available and 
> vc:facet(Un)Available redundant?
> 
> 
> 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 15:31:13 GMT

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