[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > I don't think it's important to support XSD-style element
> > defaulting (which
> > says what happens not when you omit an element, but when you
> > specify an
> > empty value for an element).
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the objection to this is. Wouldn't it make more
> sense to default an empty element than to insert the element automatically
> (which could be taken care of by setting the minimum occurrence to one)?
How would setting the minimum occurrence to one automatically insert the
element along with its value?
> Or
> do you think that the whole idea of element defaulting is misguided?
Support for attribute defaulting is arguably desirable because there is a
long-established practice of doing it and people have got used to depending
on it. There is no such well-established practice for element defaulting.
What is the compelling use case for being able to specify an empty element
in the instance and have the validator insert a value specified in the
schema? This is not at all the same kind of thing as attribute defaulting
and the existing practice of attribute defaulting provides no justification
for such a feature. Why should this one particular kind of transformation be
specified in a schema?
James
|
