[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema

• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:04:03 -0500

> Element types have specific semantics that don't very across instances. I
> would have thought that this would be one of the few universally accepted
> truths in the XML world (wishful thinking, I guess).

I think this depends on your notion of type. If I have an element containing
other elements in a specific order, I can give that combination a type
name "foo". If I have an instance that includes all of those elements,
plus an addition element, I can say that the instance extends the type
of the element, and I could give that derived type a name "bar" saying that
"bar" extends "foo" (type derivation by extension in XML Schema), or I
could simply say that the type of the element is "element content" for a
less restrictive type.

I think William was just pointing out that ad-hoc type extension is, in
fact,
very common in XML applications, and is one of the reasons for the success
of XML.

• References:
  • RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
    • From: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Next by Date: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Previous by thread: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Next by thread: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread