Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > I don't think it's important to support XSD-style element > > defaulting (which > > says what happens not when you omit an element, but when you > > specify an > > empty value for an element). > > I'm not entirely sure what the objection to this is. Wouldn't it make more > sense to default an empty element than to insert the element automatically > (which could be taken care of by setting the minimum occurrence to one)? How would setting the minimum occurrence to one automatically insert the element along with its value? > Or > do you think that the whole idea of element defaulting is misguided? Support for attribute defaulting is arguably desirable because there is a long-established practice of doing it and people have got used to depending on it. There is no such well-established practice for element defaulting. What is the compelling use case for being able to specify an empty element in the instance and have the validator insert a value specified in the schema? This is not at all the same kind of thing as attribute defaulting and the existing practice of attribute defaulting provides no justification for such a feature. Why should this one particular kind of transformation be specified in a schema? James
|
