[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I have often heard it repeated that simpleType built-ins were never
intended for widespread use and that the assumption was all simpleTypes
would be derived. I have wondered if that sentiment represents the whole
of the WG or not...
Cheers,
Jeff Rafter
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> G. Ken Holman wrote:
>
>>
>>> 11. Devils advocate: Whats the difference in having to distribute the
>>> latest .gc file versus having to use the latest XSD with updated
>>> embedded enums ? (Ok, I think I know the answer to this one, but it
>>> would be good to have a quote from 'championing' designer, for the
>>> benefit of my peer group and sceptical and untrusting bosses :-)
>>
>>
>> That the structural integrity of UBL isn't being changed by changing a
>> bunch of allowable values and therefore shouldn't have to require the
>> redistribution of schemas that dictate the allowed structures.
>
> Also there is nothing stopping the .gc file being the maintenance
> format, and an XSD (or, indeed, Schematron) schema fragment being
> generated from that .gc file. For example, available from a cached URL.
>
> This kind of layering is where XSD gets it all wrong at the moment.
> (Things like derivation checking should be a separately specified layer
> on top of the schema, a cost bourne by the niche users who need it,
> rather than built-in, for example.)
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
