OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Choosing a target name for a processing instruction

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Michael Good wrote:
> We always encourage MusicXML developers to use validating parsers.
Yes, validation is useful for any non-toy work.

But the essense of extensibility is for the document to say what schema 
it was written for, and the receiving application to have a policy on 
unexpected elements or attributes. In other words, when a receiving 
application validates using a fixed schema (rather than one suggested by 
information in the document), it is setting a particular policy on 
elements or attributes.

In the long run, you might also consider this approach: as well as your 
strict schema, also have a very loose fallback schema that allows 
extensions: if the incoming document fails against the strict schema, 
the user is told the file is unusual and then asked whether they want to 
attempt to continue (with the loose schema). That provides the benficial 
inconvenience of invalidity without preventing import of extended documents.

> We have just two applications that really need this added
> functionality ASAP - our writing application and a third-party reading
> application. It turns out that writing a processing instruction
> without a data field is problematic with our Java/Xerces combination,
Why is this? Xerces can report PIs... (I can understand it if you have 
some elements that are EMPTY that you might otherwise want to put a PI 



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS