[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'm not convinced that using xsi:type does base the
processing model on W3C XML Schema's notion of types.
It simply makes use of the declaration of an element's
having a type of a given name.
If you can make the argument that W3C XML Schemas says
the type or its name *is* the the W3C Schema type definition,
I'll gladly change my position.
I was (perhaps mistakenly) approaching it as though W3C XML
Schemas says "Here's how you can assert that an element
is of a named type when that type name doesn't match the
element name."
And while W3C XML Schemas says "here's how you can use
type names to validate documents with W3C XML
Schemas", I don't think it claims ownership of either the
notion of types or the meaning of type names any more
than it claims ownership of element names.
Best,
Bill
Michael Brennan wrote:
>>From: Bill Lindsey [mailto:bill@b-bop.com]
>>
>
> <snip/>
>
>>I'd be particularly interested in hearing
>>
>>arguments that this approach:
>>
>>
>> * somehow subverts W3C Schemas or Namespaces
>>
>> * requires W3C schema validation or PSVI processing
>>
>> * interferes with W3C schema validation or PSVI processing
>>
>> * favors any particular schema language over others
>>
>> * is ugly
>>
>
> How about this now bases a generalized processing model on XML Schema's
> notion of types -- something that has proven to be quite controversial, and
> has *not* proven itself to be a generalized-enough foundation for very
> general XML architectures. In fact, it has been proven that XML Schema types
> cannot adequately model all possible XML structures, so you've just
> constrained this approach to be restricted to only a subset of possible
> documents.
>
> DOCTYPEs have their own problems, but they are already there in the
> foundation of XML, so we have to contend with them.
>
> I have a big problem with basing this on XML Schema types.
>
>
>
|
