Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XHTML m12n XSD
 From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@h...> > I'd be curious to know what you liked about "redefine". It would seem to me that you could accomplish typically uses of redefine with XSLT during schema authoring time and there is no need to burden > the validator with the complexity of fetching all the previous versions or variants of a schema and performing an invariant merging. Yes, <redefine> <include> and <import> are all just shorthands to make declarations easier. But the point of m12n is to make a set of abstractions which concveniently group XHTML declarations together: in m12n you use naming conventions on top of PEs to represent the abstract m12n, in XML Schemas we have some more specific inclusion constructs than PEs which allow a little higher-level modeling of the m12n abstract model. > It is something that is essential to XHTML m12n or is it just a convienience? I think it is essential to XHTML m12n, but obviously not essential to XHTML. There are many equivalent ways that the same schema could be structured: for example, we could do away with <redefine> ( in the unextended XHTML schemas) by having two sub-schemas for each module, one giving the effect of the INCLUDED module, and one providing the effect of the IGNORED module (i.e., one would just change the URL to INCLUDE or IGNORE). That would be nice, but I just couldn't reconcile it with the m12n anstract model, which seems to be based on a module being included or not: if the XHTML M12n WG decides this is not intrinsic to their idea of M12n we could use this dual-schema approach (which is partly needed because there is no equivalent to <!ENTITY % x ""> in XML Schemas, I think) The underlying issue is this: is it possible to enumerate all the possible uses of PEs and provide direct high-level equivalents of them (in present or future XML Schemas?) I think it is certainly worthwhile doing this for one level above PEs, which is what <import>. <include>, <redefine>, substitution groups and type derivation try to do: but no-one has figured out every possible construct that can be built with PEs -- things like m12n are useful but certainly not exhaustive for what can be built. XML schemas does not have an equivalent to IGNORE/INCLUDE, and Dave Peterson has long called for the introduction of boolean expressions in INCLUDE/IGNORE sections. I think it comes down to whether people expect schemas to maintained in entity managers or in proprietary systems. Cheers Rick Jelliffe 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
