- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 13 Dec 2002 10:10:38 +0000
- To: "Matthew Fuchs" <mattfuchs@earthlink.net>
- Cc: "Don Box" <dbox@microsoft.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
"Matthew Fuchs" <mattfuchs@earthlink.net> writes:
> Ah, OK. I was pointing out that I didn't think your schema should be
> allowed because it could break in the way I specified - in other words, I
> would not want your schema to be legal because mine clearly wasn't. I
> didn't go the extra step of putting the substitutionGroup affiliation in
> another schema so that the breakage would only occur in the instance, as I
> did with the multiple substitutionGroup case, but it works about the same.
>
> I still don't get why this kind of thing is desireable.
I'm now lost as to what the referent is of "this kind of thing" in the
above. What aspect of my example (_without_ your additions) do you
consider undesirable?
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 05:10:35 UTC