Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yes. It is the version problem and a version can't be identified by an opaque URI. You can identify the space but the explicit assumption is a bounded space has a potentially infinite membership. For that, a functional naming system works. The value of the schema version could be a URN. Minting URNs means that they aren't URIs because a) they aren't opaque b) they are resources True or false, ladies and gentlemen? len From: Pete Cordell [mailto:petexmldev@t...] I sense that this is a wider debate that I'm naively wading into here, and I think your primary application domain is different to mine. But (most likely telling you things you already know)... 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. To end with a slightly emotive statement, there is no point in worrying how you are going to identify an up-issued schema if you can't generate one (or at least, the one you want) in the first place :-)
|
