- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:55:21 -0000
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Original Message From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
> Nobody's making you use any one variant of the wildcard. When Not In
> Schema (notQname="##defined") is what you want, use that. If not, you can
> always explicitly list the QNames you want to exclude. We toyed with
> allowing some reference to a shared list, but it didn't make the 80/20
> cut. You can, of course, use XML entities to share a list if it's long,
> should you wish to, and if similar wildcards are to appear in many places.
> In some cases, the automatic exclusion of everything is what you want.
> After all, many languages combine elements from many namespaces, and we
> don't want to put a lot of semantic into which things happen to be
> declared in the same schema document vs. say, an included document or an
> includer document.
If not the default, then what I'm looking for is something like:
notQName="##localElements"
which does not conflict with any of the elements that have already been
defined in the particle (and non-elemental child particles, and parents of
non-elemental particles etc. etc.)
Is this the concept you dismissed above due to the 80/20 cut?
If I ruled the world, and I could only choose one of the above two mentioned
options, then I would go for the notQName="##localElements" option. This is
because mimicking this with the entity technique you suggest would
potentially involve dozens of entities (defined miles away from where they
are actually used - making it buggy to add new elements to a complex type),
whereas notQname="##defined" requires only one entity. Indeed, you might
get finer control using the entity technique rather than using the sweeping
notQname="##defined" method.
Thanks again,
Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:56:19 UTC