Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI wrote: > So if you have the general concept only and doesn't have any specific > details of the derivation-by-restriction, then you would > probably think > this is a valid restriction, which was my intention. > > My reasoning was > > - when it comes to the derivation-by-restriction, the general > understanding is not enough. You need to learn many specific details > of the derivation by restriction. > > - so compared to its merit, it doesn't worth learning. My feeling was that other than trivial cases, it was so complex that interoperability of implementations should not be expected. I guess we/they will find that out in the development of the Schema conformance suite. I would suggest avoiding it for general use and use named content and attribute groups. Substitution groups are also problematic for complex schemas. I recently wrote a fairly complex schema for defining DOM conformance tests and my original approach was to use a "statement" substitution group to represent all the statements in the language, trying to define all the complex types in use as a derivation of the base "statement" complex type was extremely cumbersome and difficult. I eventually bailed and used an named group though I would have liked to have had the implicit membership of substitution groups. I was also having serious difficulty defining a substitution group that contained both elements with simple content and elements with complex content. Maybe it is possible, but I couldn't make it work and I'm not a novice.
|
