- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:14:52 +0100
- To: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Francis McCabe wrote: > 2. The extensibility CSF is supported by XML in a relatively weak sense. > Part of the semantics of XML is the default assumption that any tool > processing an XML structure that it did not directly understand should > ignore that structure. Following up the telecon discussion on this... What I was trying to say is that I'm not convinced that all XML tools are supposed to automatically ignore unknown structure. A notable number of tools are based on XML Schema in which it is possible to permit an element to contain unknown elements but it is also surely possible to block this and enumerate all of the elements which may be contained within a parent element. It is possible that my view of the XML world is biased by mostly seeing things intended for use with SOAP which has stronger closed world assumptions. It is also perfectly possible I'm simply mistaken - my experience with XML is limited and not happy. I certainly don't think XML opposes the extensibility CSF, it can be arranged that it permits extension. Though documents like [*] seem to suggest that it takes non-trivial thought to sow the seeds of forward compatibility into your schema. ... On reflection perhaps all I'm doing is registering surprise rather than raising a real objection. Having registered that surprise I'll now try to get over it, and withdraw my objection - go ahead and put the link in. Dave [*] http://types.bu.edu/seminar-documents/Versioning.pdf
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 16:15:18 UTC