Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Jonathan, Sorry - rereading, I see I missed one of your points: > see that this might be implemeneted in a schema language neutral > fashion. As I understand it, schema-supporting functions would work on a PSVI. If the extension functions were defined in terms of the PSVI, then the schema language (or rather the schema syntax) that we used would be independent. For example, we could come up with a simplified syntax that used the same conceptual schema components as those used in XML Schema, which would create a PSVI that holds the same information. However, most of the other schema languages that are around at the moment don't define a PSVI, indeed they purposefully keep away from anything of the sort, for good reasons (like not wanting the meaning of an XML document to change depending on whether a schema is available or not). So, given that the XML Schema PSVI is the only well-defined PSVI around at the moment, then I think XPath extension functions should use that for now. It might be possible to define mapping rules from other schema languages onto this PSVI - use the names of the ref elements in TREX to indicate some kind of type hierarchy, for example. Of course I'm open to suggestions (though as we're starting to talk about EXSLT extensions we should probably take it to list@e...). Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
