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

Re: xsi:type and broken contracts

• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: 08 Jun 2002 11:15:04 +0100
• Cc: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3D01352F.A2FFF0A6@p...>
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621C9B@r...><f5bvg8u4x9p.fsf@c...> <3D01352F.A2FFF0A6@p...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.2(beta13) (Demeter)

Paul Prescod <paul@p...> writes:

> Henry S. Thompson" wrote:
> > 
> >...
> > 
> > That was certainly the goal.  If you _do_ depend only required
> > sub-parts/attributes, and _don't_ access sub-parts by working backwards
> > from the end, you will always win regardless of xsi:type.
> 
> Is it that simple? What if I have a content model like
> 
> <!ELEMENT a (b,c)+> (but expressed in XML Schema!)
> 
> Can someone extend it:
> 
> <!ELEMENT a' ((b,c)+,c,b)>

Yes.

> If so, that could really confuse most element-triggered processing
> specifications.

Not sure what you mean.  This is a difficult case to start with (it's
DT/DD under another name, a well-known pain for XPath).  But if I
tackle it in the usual way, i.e. by recursion over the nodelist
picking of b+c pairs, it will work just fine, i.e. stop after the b+c
pairs run out, ignoring the new material.

Which, I should clarify, is what I take it the MNTDV is -- processes
designed to work with the unextended type should work with instances
of the extended type just as they would have if the extra material
wasn't there.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Malicious documents? (WAS: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside)
• Next by Date: Re: Malicious documents? (WAS: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside)
• Previous by thread: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• Next by thread: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread