[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document

• To: "Bill Lindsey" <bill@b...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:37:01 -0800
• References: <3C4EDE73.62D3CEA6@m...> <3C4F19AA.4070602@b...>

Yaaay, yet another overloading of a construct. :)

When I see an xsi:type, declaration on an element I certainly would hope it is
actually some sort of type information _about_the_element_ as opposed to the
location of the metadata documentation/resource repository for the *entire
document*.

--
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #112
I will not rely entirely upon "totally reliable" spells that can be
neutralized by relatively inconspicuous talismans.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Lindsey" <bill@b...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:14 PM
Subject: Re:  Strategies for a lowly XML document


> Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> > <?rddl-doctype href="http://example.org/some-rddl-description.html" ?>
> >
> > I've heard both sides, some people desire "document type" based
> > processing, others don't. Is there any harm in providing for this
> > _optional_ PI?
>
>
> My objection is that is another way to accomplish the same goal
> that is already part of a W3C recommendation:  the "xsi:type"
> attribute from W3C XML Schemas.
>
> Your goals, as I understand them:
>    * Identify a document as belonging to a named type
>    * Using the name itself as a reference to a resource directory
>
> xsi:type does the first, and as best as I can tell doesn't
> preclude our doing the second.
>
> At 1014 23/01/2002 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
>  > I don't think it's as clear cut as this. Imagine
>  > that your application, for
>  > whatever reason, wants to package several XML
>  > documents together into one
>  > overall document. You might then want to write:
>  >
>  > <DocSet rddl:doctype="http://whatever/DocSet">
>  >     <doc1 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype1">
>  >        :
>  >     </doc1>
>  >     <doc2 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype2">
>  >        :
>  >     </doc2>
>  > </DocSet>
>
> What's wrong with:
>
> <DocSet
>       xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>       xmlns:rxds="http://whatever/DocSet"
>       xsi:type="rxds:doc">
>     <doc1
>       xmlns:rxdt1="http://whatever/doctype1"
>       xsi:type="rxdt1:doc">
>         :
>     </doc1>
>     <doc2
>       xmlns:rxdt2="http://whatever/doctype2"
>       xsi:type="rxdt2:doc">
>         :
>     </doc2>
> </DocSet>
>
>
> I'd be particularly interested in hearing
>
> arguments that this approach:
>
>
>  * somehow subverts W3C Schemas or Namespaces
>
>   * requires W3C schema validation or PSVI processing
>
>  * interferes with W3C schema validation or PSVI processing
>
>   * favors any particular schema language over others
>
>  * is ugly
>
>
> Best,
> Bill
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• References:
  • Strategies for a lowly XML document
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
    • From: Bill Lindsey <bill@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by Date: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Previous by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread