[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Deborah Aleyne Lapeyre <dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com> writes:
> Jeni said:
>
> >Actually I think we can break this pattern down into two classes:
> >
> > 1. grouping elements based on their *content* -- in other words, the
> > *type* hierarchy
> >
> > 2. grouping elements based on their *context* -- in other words, the
> *substitution group* hierarchy
>
> > The current focus in XPath/XQuery is very much on 1 rather than 2.
>
> Yes, but that has been one of my major objections to W3C XML Schema
> all along. W3C only gave us #1 really and some very crude mechanisms
> for #2. The XPath/XQuery folk are heading in the same direction.
I'd be very grateful for examples of where substitution groups don't
enable the reconstruction of parameter entity usage a la Maler and El
Andaloussi. I know about the multiple inheritance problem here, and
we're looking at that as a possible requirement for XML Schema 1.1,
but even here clear examples of what you can't do without that would
be helpful in arguing the case.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
