- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:41:31 +0100
- To: "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> > Our problem with the xpath stuff is that we unmarshal into > strongly typed C++ objects. Products with that kind of architecture already seem to struggle with many aspects of XML Schema conformance, for example some of them have great trouble with mixed content. That suggests to me that if you're aiming for complete support of XML Schema validation rules, you've got the wrong architecture. Or perhaps it suggests that there might be a need for an XML Schema profile for data binding. Certainly I don't think one can define a mechanism for integrity constraints using general predicates (which is certainly needed) without making some assumptions about the data model, and it's going to be difficult to apply those predicates after converting the data into a model that is significantly different from the original. > > I've also just noticed the xs:alternative construct. I > haven't had a chance to digest it yet, but it doesn't seem > great to me! It might be helpful in a document oriented > world, but in a data oriented world, I'd rather have a > simpler language, and modify the schema accordingly, so that > you get something like: > > <message><messageTypeBase64>jkhgkjh</messageTypeBase64></message> > Actually I think the use cases for conditional type assignment come as much or more from the "data" world as the document world. The overwhelming experience is that people aren't prepared to design their XML instances to fit within the constraints imposed by XML Schema, they want to write schemas that describe the data as they have designed it. > I'm going to find something else to do, because this is > depressing me Please, first, submit your comments on the spec where they will receive attention! Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 14:41:52 UTC