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

RE: Relax NG, Thoughts, etc.

• To: "'Burak Emir'" <Burak.Emir@e...>
• Subject: RE: Relax NG, Thoughts, etc.
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:34:21 -0000
• Cc: "'XML Developers List'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <41AB2326.9020800@e...>
• Thread-index: AcTWFtJak5DI6fNwQuKuq+BOiVNK/QAB6TqA

> >
> >  match="schema-element(my:invoice)"
> >
> >  
> >
> Am I right in the assumption that "schema-element" specifies 
> a pattern 
> matching a PSVI  item with label "invoice"?

It matches an element node in the XPath data model whose node-name is either
my:invoice or a name declared in the schema as being in the substitution
group of my:invoice, and whose type annotation indicates that it has been
validated against the schema-defined type of the global element my:invoice.
> 
> If yes, I find the name a bit misleading.

We have spent a very long time searching for the ideal keywords, but in the
end, no-one can be expected to guess what language keywords mean without
reading the spec.
> 
> >
> Shouldn't there be a way to tell the typechecker that we assume all 
> elements are valid, i.e. PSVI items?
> 
We had a lengthy debate on that at a recent XSL WG meeting: I had proposed
such a mechanism, but I failed to convice my colleagues that it could be
made to work without a great deal of additional complexity. The thinking is
that if users want to only match valid data, they have syntax for saying so,
and if they get benefits from using this syntax, they will learn to use it.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Re: Relax NG, Thoughts, etc.
    • From: Burak Emir <Burak.Emir@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Is an XQuery Document an XML Document?
• Next by Date: RE: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Relax NG, Thoughts, etc.
• Next by thread: DTDDoc 0.0.11 is out
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread