- From: Danny Vint <dvint@dvint.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Jeff Rafter <lists@jeffrafter.com>
- Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Both of my groups allow for restriction of elements that they do not support as well as extension, although extension is probalby the larger use. ..dan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Vint Specializing in Panoramic Images of California and the West http://www.dvint.com Voice:510:522-4703 FAX: 801-749-3229 On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Jeff Rafter wrote: > >> As an SGML publsihing guy I found this to be a horrifying situation but >> over the years working with the Insurance industry, I've come to accept the >> need for this. Now the question is how do you support it and with which >> features? The one group that uses xsd:any is not interested in validatiing >> the extensions, the other group is. We are not happy that redefine modifies >> the primary namespace, but we have to live with that outcome to get the >> functionality we are looking for "out of te box" with standard XML schema >> tools. > > This is exactly the thinking in the MISMO group. Alongside our allowance of > <redefine> is a guideline on how extensions to the core schemas should be > done. Attributes and elements from other namespaces may be added to the > content models of existing elements, but nothing can be taken away. Because > the extensions must be namespaced processing the core elements and attributes > is rigid and tools that were designed to operate on the core schemas can > generally be re-used in the extended versions. > > Cheers, > Jeff Rafter > >
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 21:04:06 UTC