Re: [xml-dev] xsi:type and broken contracts

[Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>]

Henry S. Thompson" wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> That was certainly the goal.  If you _do_ depend only required
> sub-parts/attributes, and _don't_ access sub-parts by working backwards
> from the end, you will always win regardless of xsi:type.

Is it that simple? What if I have a content model like

<!ELEMENT a (b,c)+> (but expressed in XML Schema!)

Can someone extend it:

<!ELEMENT a' ((b,c)+,c,b)>

If so, that could really confuse most element-triggered processing
specifications.

 Paul Prescod