• To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>
• Subject: RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <mike@w...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:55:26 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3C84BE1A.5020305@d...>

Your example is still well-formed and can still be processed as such. It may
not be schema valid, but, hey, content models need to evolve, too! And RELAX
NG names-classes, as you probably already know, can help you deal with such
cases. See
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/tutorial-20011203.html#IDAFLZR
.

Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>That's not that easy and there is nothing in the specs which helps to
>create the discipline required in the applications to make it smooth.
>
>Let's take a simple example... I have a text only element:
>
><ns1:foo>This is a simple example.</ns1:foo>
>
>If I extend this example to include a semantic element to identify
>"simple" as an adjective:

><ns1:foo>This is a <ns2:adj>simple</ns2:adj> example.</ns1:foo>
>
>I am changing a text leaf node into a mixed content including 2 text
>nodes separated by a child element and this will likely break 90+% of
>the existing applications.

• References:
  • Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Next by Date: SAX, DOM or XPATH???
• Previous by thread: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Next by thread: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread