[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
But from my point of view, the abstract element may be better. My brain got
locked onto the use of xsi:type since the element had an existing Type
attribute that I planned to replace. I blame the fact that I have added
another year today.
Making the element abstract may actually be a better solution - instead of
using xsi:type with an existing element name and getting the implementer to
define his/her own type, I just get them to define an element and put it in
a substitution group. I will need to consult the EML Technical Committee as
the software developers among them may object to the change in element names
depending on context. Otherwise, it looks like back to the Schematron.
Regards
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florent Georges [mailto:darkman_spam@yahoo.fr]
> Sent: 07 June 2006 17:13
> To: George Cristian Bina
> Cc: XML Dev ML
> Subject: [xml-dev] RE : Re: [xml-dev] Tr: RE : [xml-dev] Enforcing use
> of xsi:type
>
>
> George Cristian Bina wrote:
>
> > If the element is abstract then you cannot have that element
> > in the instance document no matter what type you set using
> > xsi:type.
>
> Yes, you're right, I meant an element with an abstract type.
>
> Thank for the correction.
>
> Regards,
>
> --drkm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure
> protection possible contre les messages non sollicités
> http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
|
