• From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>
• To: noah_mendelsohn@u...
• Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:40:29 -0500

noah_mendelsohn@u... wrote:
> David Carver writes:
>
>   
>> Personally, I HATE xsi:type. In most B2B scenarios I've been involved 
>> with it causes more interoperability issues then it solves.
>>     
> If you're arguing against xsi:type, I can certainly understand that.  It's 
> the wrong thing in >90% of use cases (probably way more, but I'm just 
> guessing and trying to be conservative), and it makes a mess of instance 
> documents.  It was introduced because some members of the Schema WG were 
>   
This is what I was saying, xsi:type causes more issues than it solves.


>
> Personally, I'm not convinced that supporting that scenario should have 
> made an 80/20 cut for schema, but as happens on a big committee, some 
> people argued very strongly for it.  You can, of course, turn it off by 
> using suitable "block" attributes at the right points in your schema. 
> While that pretty much ensures that your instances are clean (I think 
> xsi:type is still allowed for better or worse, but it can't then designate 
> a type other than the one your element would have had anyway, as I 
> recall), but it's a nuissance in the schema.
>   
Unfortunately, the block attributes are implemented and supported 
differently amongst the current validating parsers. Some say xsi:type 
isn't allowed at all (my personal preference) and some allow it as long 
as it's the correct type.

• References:
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: noah_mendelsohn@u...