- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:21:51 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5198 ------- Comment #3 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 2007-10-16 16:21 ------- Pete: I've always been sympathetic to XSD being a language that supports databinding well. For example, I've argued for the very controversial UPA feature in part on those grounds. That said: I'm not quite sure why the descendent axis causes trouble in assertions. Assertions cause extensional restriction in the language: nothing can be accepted by a type with an assertion that could not have been accepted by a type without that assertion. So, presuming that users continue to use content models for the things that they do well (admittedly an assumption), I think databinding tools could either: * completely ignore assertions, and likely produce results no worse than would have been obtained with schema 1.0 * take note of the many assertions that will likely be simple, such as @max > @min, if those are useful. (I would sooner thing these would be useful to a UI framework than to a databinding tool, but either way they're pretty easy to understand). With or without descendent axes I think you can construct fairly complicated XPaths that would be hard for a databinding tool to do much with; it's not clear to me that descendent makes things particularly worse, and it allows checks of constructions that are very natural in XML. Noah
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 16:21:58 UTC