Lists Home |
Date Index |
3/5/2002 4:31:40 PM, "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>What exactly was your original concern and how is it not solved by
I was basically wondering why xsi:type isn't more widely used,
in the context of Nicolas Lehunen's lament that the PSVI isn't
widely supported. Putting the type information in the instance
would, in my "stupid" thinking, hit the 80:20 point by giving
applications access to the type of an element without all sorts
of currently unsupported voodoo. As with most things, it
comes down to best practices -- you CAN do lots of good things
in XML if you carefully choose bits and pieces from the specs
and roll your own code rather than expecting the parser/validator/
wizard/whatever to do them for you.
Or is my basic assumption stupid, and people DO frequently use xsi:type
rather than out-of-band schemas for this sort of thing?