- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@d...>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:38:04 +0000
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, 14:29 Simon St.Laurent, < simonstl@s...> wrote:
On 4/20/2018 12:59 PM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
Hi
Folks,
The
format of KML 2.3 documents are specified with a W3C 1.1 XML
Schema. XML Schema 1.1 has a powerful feature which KML
uses. At the top of the KML schema is this:
<defaultOpenContent mode="interleave">
<any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
</defaultOpenContent>
Read
as: "KML documents are open. That is, XML elements from any
non-KML namespace can be inserted before and after every
element in KML documents. Those non-KML elements do not have
to validate against any schema."
That
makes KML very extensible.
But
why?
Why not? In Simon's world of sane XML, EVERY SINGLE SCHEMA would
include such a thing, and be mocked if it didn't.
And in RDF, it comes with the territory; you have to work harder to escape the flexibility and extensibility. It has been a blessing ans a curse :)
Thanks,
Simon
If
I add non-KML stuff in a KML instance, who’s going to
understand my stuff? Google Earth? No. Google Maps? No. NASA
WorldWind? No.
Only
applications that have been custom-coded to understand my
stuff will be able to do anything with it. Right? Doesn’t
that destroy KML as a global geographic
annotation/visualization language since now you’ve got all
these non-interoperable dialects floating around?
Thoughts?
/Roger
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
