- From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:47:58 +0100
- To: "'Wilde Rebecca L SSgt HQ SSG/STS'" <Rebecca.Wilde@Gunter.AF.mil>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <20040726165930.80333A1D41@frink.w3.org>
I have in the past used an extra control attribute, such as action="create|update|delete" to indicate what the recipient is expected to do with the data. You could put this in a separate namespace to minimize the impact on the schema describing the data itself. Michael Kay _____ From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wilde Rebecca L SSgt HQ SSG/STS Sent: 26 July 2004 17:06 To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: Looking for advice on empty tag usage Hello, I'm working on creating an XML schema to be used with XSLT and Web Services that interfaces with a legacy system. On this legacy system there are fields that accept values like "*" to signify that the user wants to clear whatever was stored in that field before. I would like to create something more user friendly and intuitive (while still allowing a user to send an asterisk to mean clear as well) and so some ideas I have come up with are: 1) Use an empty tag such as <ClearNarrative/> and then putting a group choice of <ClearNarrative/> and <Narrative/> within my sequenced type. 2) Use an attribute to signify that the field should be cleared on the legacy system. Only problem is I don't see a way to use the attribute with just listing the attribute without a value (i.e. <Narrative clear> instead of <Narrative clear="Y">. I cannot just assume that if <Narrative/> is sent to my Web Service that the user wants the field cleared as some programs that interface may decide to send all tags whether information is being passed or not. I was wondering if there might be a best practice around on how best to solve my problem. Or if anyone might have some wisdom to share on this type of situation. Thank you in advance, Rebecca Wilde
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 12:59:32 UTC