Lists Home |
Date Index |
Davidís paper is interesting but it, like others, talks more about
extensibility as oppose to versioning. As most people are hinting, and as I
suspected, there is no silver bullet.
>From: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
>To: "'Andrew Wheeler'" <email@example.com>, "'firstname.lastname@example.org'"
>Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Schema Evolution
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:52:38 -0700
>I particularly liked Dave Orchard's exposition of the problem and the
>In XForms we allowed foreign attributes across the board, added an
><extension> element, and added an attribute mustUnderstand (borrwed from
>SOAP) to let document authors express which extensions are required and
>which ones are optional. It still doesn't feel right, since the
>element is clunky, and the division line between Schema author and document
>author seems inadequate if there are multiple document processing contexts.
>The analysis in Dave Orchard's paper shows, however, that nothing (yet)
>feels quite right.
>I think it really *ought* to be easy to define a language that allows
>extensions from other namespaces, specifies where they are allowed, and
>maybe even lets you (the Schema author) say something about the extensions
>as substitution groups do, but without having to dance through the
>minefields of optional elements and sequence limitations. In my non-Xerox
>time I am trying to help design a language that allows for future
>extensibility, and finding the tools still a bit blunt (http://xdif.org).
>From: Andrew Wheeler [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:12 AM
>Subject: [xml-dev] Schema Evolution
> Providing Compatible Schema Evolution.
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!