• To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@t...>
• Subject: Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
• From: Paul Downey <paul.downey@w...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:21:33 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>,"Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>
• In-reply-to: <002601c587da$ccb23ae0$b700a8c0@RW>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07207135@h...> <002601c587da$ccb23ae0$b700a8c0@RW>

Pete

> In a protocol / data oriented world, when you up issue, the ideal  
> would be to leave the targetNamespace URI (I assume that's the URI  
> you're talking about) the same and possibly change the xs:schema  
> version attribute (for info).  Any XML instances generated against the  
> old schema would also be valid against the new schema.  Thus, in my  
> selfish application domain this is not a problem.

This is in essence the POV I've been pushing in the WSDL 2.0 WG for
'LC124' which specifies a processing trick to add open content to
an existing schema - the schema specifies what a receiver may
expect to be available to process, but there may be other stuff
which should be ignored.

This was discussed during the Schema Workshop:
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-schema-workshop/chairs- 
report.html#Versioning


--
http://blog.whatfettle.com

• References:
  • RE: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSL for non-XML input (Was: Re: XMLHangover)
• Next by Date: Re: Arbortext bought
• Previous by thread: Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
• Next by thread: RE: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread