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

RE: SAF anyone?

• To: "'Jonathan Robie'" <jonathan.robie@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: SAF anyone?
• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:27:34 -0800

> From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@s...]

<snip/>

> I'll send you the most recent version of the SAF in separate email.

Is there any reason why this cannot be posted publicly? I'd be interested in
seeing this, too.

I'd been under the impression that SAF was getting no further development.
Support for appinfo makes sense; I'm glad that was added. However, I don't
think dispensing with adornments all together makes sense. There may be
cases where you want to add adjuncts to a schema that you do not maintain,
and you may prefer not to have to modify the schema.

My preference would be for a model that supports appinfo annotations
directly within an XML Schema, analogous annotation constructs within RELAX
NG schemas, or within rules in a Schematron schema (or something like it) to
support the adornments approach. If that could be made to work, that seems
like this would offer the greatest utility to developers.

Thanks.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAF anyone?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • RE: SAF anyone?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented vs action-oriented
• Next by thread: RE: SAF anyone?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread