Lists Home |
Date Index |
Deborah Aleyne Lapeyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
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: email@example.com
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]