- 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