Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
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.
[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