Lists Home |
Date Index |
It is the version problem and a version can't
be identified by an opaque URI. You can identify
the space but the explicit assumption is a bounded
space has a potentially infinite membership. For
that, a functional naming system works.
The value of the schema version could be a URN.
Minting URNs means that they aren't URIs because
a) they aren't opaque
b) they are resources
True or false, ladies and gentlemen?
From: Pete Cordell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I sense that this is a wider debate that I'm naively wading into here, and I
think your primary application domain is different to mine. But (most
likely telling you things you already know)...
In a protocol / data oriented world, when you up issue, the ideal would be
to leave the targetNamespace URI (I assume that's the URI you're talking
about) the same and possibly change the xs:schema version attribute (for
info). Any XML instances generated against the old schema would also be
valid against the new schema. Thus, in my selfish application domain this
is not a problem.
To end with a slightly emotive statement, there is no point in worrying how
you are going to identify an up-issued schema if you can't generate one (or
at least, the one you want) in the first place :-)