Lists Home |
Date 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
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.
Michael Brennan wrote:
>>From: Bill Lindsey [mailto:email@example.com]
>>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
> 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.