RE: Backward and forward compatible schemas ... RelaxNG --> Y
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 22:33 -0700, Dave Orchard wrote: > The blanket statement that XML schema 1.0 does not support forwards and backwards compatibility is incorrect. Using an "Extension" > or "Sentinel" element, one can get around XSD 1.0 UPA constraints at the cost of extra markup in instances. This is shown in the > W3C TAG Versioning Finding(editors draft) XML and Schema doc, section 7.4 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-xml#versionid3 > and in the section 4 "Version Strategy" of an XML.com article explaining forwards compatibility using XSD 1.0 > (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/10/27/extend.html?page=4) I think Dave is replacing one blanket statement with another. To say "it supports it in a particular case" is no rebuttal to people saying "it doesn't support it in every case, by which I mean 'in my case'." What people complain about with XML Schemas 1.0 is having to adjust the base schema when they want to just be able to adjust the derived schemas. (That you have to add wildcards or <other> elements willy nilly is as old as the hills, and no advance on parameter entities or <redefine>.) However, the whole basis of XML Schemas is namespaces and modularity, and that means adopting standard or industry vocabularies which almost universally have not been written to be open. People are really loath to rewrite standard or industry vocabularies. That being said, the new features in XSD 1.1 for openness look a step in the right direction for capabilities, except for adding to the monolith and thereby being a step in the wrong direction complexity-wise. Cheers Rick
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format