- From: Jeff Rafter <lists@jeffrafter.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:23 -0400
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: 'Michael Kay' <mike@saxonica.com>, Paul Kiel <paul@hr-xml.org>, xmlschema-dev@w3c.org
> Jeff Rafter writes: > > > Actually, support for redefine is fairly surprising. > > Hmm. That can be read a few different ways. Heh. Support for redefine is fairly robust and widespread. I would say that as recently as a year ago I ran into problems with the redefine feature in validators-- more recently however I have found the problems gone. In general there is little or no support for redefine in databinding tools. My thinking was that they would follow the pattern that Michael set forth which is to use the last effective redefine and never redefine a used type. It is a simplification, but it is sensible. I agree that the feature is a favorite, but the fact is that it confuses a lot of people when approaching XML Schemas from a type hierarchy perspective. It also confuses a lot of validators when you get strange naming rules involved in the grammar (e.g. chameleon components). That leaves little room in between. That's the space where it makes sense. Especially for extending fixed schemas to add components from third parties. Cheers, Jeff
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 20:09:40 UTC