Re: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

[Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>]

XSD schemas tend to be compiled into code, rather than dynamically
used.  So a change the the schema can be a big deal, especially after
deployment. A schema change often means a new release of the
application or database.

So it isn't so much whether there are two files, but whether there are
two levels to allow agility.  (In XSD, you could get the effect by,
say, having a base schema that changes rarely and is used for
compilation, and a derived schema that has the asserts in it, and is
loaded dynamically.  But I don't see people actually doing that, while
I do see the grammar + schematron combination.)

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 15:57, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>> Rick Jelliffe scripsit:
>>
>>> I have reached the stage where I think every enumerated list in an XSD
>>> (or RELAX NG, or DTD) should be regarded as guilty until proven
>>> useful, unless they are stable and unlikely to change in the lifetime
>>> of a schema.
>>
>> I agree in principle.  However, such constructs may be not so much a
>> schema smell as an organizational smell.  Excluding lists from schemas
>> presumes that someone else is in the business of making and validating
>> them
>
> I don't really see a problem with holding the enumerations in a file
> of their own and versioning them separately to the main xsd.  That's
> no different to external code lists, and it avoids the separate
> additional validation step.
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Welch
> http://andrewjwelch.com