- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:33:12 -0000
- To: "Bryan Rasmussen" <brs@itst.dk>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Well, if you're just counting bits: <task><taskType1></taskType1>...</task> doesn't seem vastly different to: <task taskType="Type1">...</task> Verbosity is pretty much the nature of the XML beast, and basing your modelling on reducing that in general seems the wrong way to do things. On further reflection though, I think one of the original solutions based the answer on deriving from task with type xs:anyType. I didn't like that because it seemed to take semantic meaning away from the tag and place it with the attribute value. But I think what the original poster to this thread wants is to define a type that encompasses all tasks and have that as the type of 'task' and then use xs:restriction to constrain to a particular type of task (with xsi:type). That approach constrains what can be included in the type referenced by xsi:type and I'm more comfortable with that. Pete. ============================================= Pete Cordell http://www.xml2cpp.com ============================================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Rasmussen" <brs@itst.dk> To: "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com> Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:52 AM Subject: SV: Schema help > > > > > >>Yes, this has come up a number of times recently, but I personally didn't >>find the solutions particularly appealing! > >>Maybe people that want to do this sort of thing should consider > re-modelling >>their data so that it works to XSD's strengths. > I found this amusing in a twisted way, it struck me that working to XSD's > strengths was synonymous with producing particularly ugly XML. > >><task> >> <!-- common task elements here --> >> <taskType1> >> <!-- Task 1 things --> >> </taskType1> >></task> > >>or: > >><task> >> <!-- common task elements here --> >> <taskType2> >> <!-- Task 1 things --> >> </taskType2> >></task> > > I'm sorry but are you suggesting that task has a choice of taskType1 > taskType2 and so forth? Sometimes I think the worse thing that was ever > put > in the xml spec was that thing about verbosity not being a problem. > > > Of course I've been ranting this for years (the anti xml schema stuff), > they > called me mad at the academy, etc. etc. > > Cheers, > Bryan Rasmussen > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 09:34:21 UTC