Is <any> really enough for <any><body>?

> <warning>
> <topic>
> I'm can see  need for more powerful <any> 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-openness).
> My problem is probably repeated few times on xml-dev or 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/, and 
> since I don't know where to discuss about schemas, I'd like to hear 
> about better place for this discussion.
> </topic>
> 
> <discussion level='beginner'>
> Don't kill me. I started with schemas on 
> Saturday and I bumped into problem with my first exercise schema (so I
> concluded 
> there have to be real need for this, not just something from my 
> imagination). 
> </discussion>
> </warning>
> 
> How to express some constraints on <any> element? As I see it, 
> specification doesn't provide any ways for this. (Correct me, 
> please!:) 
> 
> What is the right way to express such simple thing as "any element 
> with child X". 
> 
> I'd like to reform rule 1 at 3.5 Wildcards (and rest accordingly):
> o Any well-formed XML element item with specified type constraint:
>   any tag, any namespace, any attributes, any content, as long 
>   as it's well-formed and satisfy specified schema's type constraint.
> 
> I can come up with different ways to express same thing:
> <any type='Type'/>
> <element type='Type'/>
> <element name='' type='Type'/>
> 
> But since regular expressions are now introduced, I'd love to use 
> them:
> 
> <element name='*' type='Type'/>
> <element name='*' ref="VaryingName1"/>
> 
> Allowing references in the consturct is very important!
> 
> Maybe star wildcard is just enough, but I can make some real use for 
> real patterns too:
> 
> <element name='expect_varying_named_binary_operators'>
>     <element name='(and|or|own.+BinaryOperator)' 
>              type='BinaryOperator'/>
> </element>
> 
> <type name='BinaryOperator'>
>     <element name='*' type='Operand'/>
>     <element name='*' type='Operand'/>
> </type>
> 
> ========
> document_written_by_some_completely_different_user.xml:
> ========
> <expect_varying_named_binary_operators>
>     <own_ultimately_weird_BinaryOperator>
> 	    <op1/>
> 	    <op2/>
>     </own_ultimately_weird_BinaryOperator>
> </expect_varying_named_binary_operators>
> 
> ----------------
> In the end I thought a little bit about usability and thought it 
> might be better idea to set varying names to different attribute than 
> name on <element>-element.
> 
> <element match='*'> like in xsl might be best solution.
> 
> Any ideas, comments?
> 
>      - department of uncensored ideas
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 10:57:36 UTC