• To: "Matthew Gertner" <matthew.gertner@s...>
• Subject: RE: RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: Do Names Matter?)
• From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:23:45 +0200
• Cc: "James Clark" <jjc@j...>,"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcHXAUjs0TkBKU/BRSuE3eUnT5RDhwAAIQuw
• Thread-topic: RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: Do Names Matter?)

> From: Matthew Gertner [mailto:matthew.gertner@s...] 

> Well, we're supposing that there are two alternatives for 
> element defaulting
> (besides just ditching the whole idea): 1) default empty 
> elements or 2)
> default non-present elements. If the latter is desired, it can be
> "simulated" with the former by setting the minimum occurrence 
> value to one.

IMHO, an element defaulting scheme should be flexible enough to allow
element defaulting in any number of occurrences and level of nesting.
The above, although useful, is not flexible; It is more appropriate to
design something complete from the ground up instead of compatible
workarounds that wont do later on.

Also IMHO, the semantics of a defaulting scheme should be a separate
group of semantics in a schema language otherwise it gets difficult to
follow and maintain/reuse. Something like the attribute-set, or maybe a
default-type where it's definition includes or references any
combination of complex and simple types.

Regards,

Manos

• Prev by Date: RE: RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: Do Names Matter?)
• Next by Date: Re: Xerces, XML Parsers and support for creating Documents.
• Previous by thread: RE: RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: Do Names Matter?)
• Next by thread: RE: RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: Do Names Matt er?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread