Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: Bill Lindsey [mailto:bill@b...] <snip/> > I'm not convinced that using xsi:type does base the > processing model on W3C XML Schema's notion of types. > It simply makes use of the declaration of an element's > having a type of a given name. > > If you can make the argument that W3C XML Schemas says > the type or its name *is* the the W3C Schema type definition, > I'll gladly change my position. > > I was (perhaps mistakenly) approaching it as though W3C XML > Schemas says "Here's how you can assert that an element > is of a named type when that type name doesn't match the > element name." > > And while W3C XML Schemas says "here's how you can use > type names to validate documents with W3C XML > Schemas", I don't think it claims ownership of either the > notion of types or the meaning of type names any more > than it claims ownership of element names. XML Schema has a very explicit notion of what is a type, and that notion is quite unique to XML Schema. Other specs (e.g. the XML Namespace spec) use the term "type" to mean something completely different. The xsi:type attribute is quite specifically coupled with XML Schema's notion of types.
|
