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

Re: XSD spec question

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: XSD spec question
• From: Paul Downey <paul.downey@w...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:35:20 +0100
• Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1114627837.9178.280.camel@l...>
• References: <7A04A6A661C84648BD9BEB282F265B4901957998@N...> <426F2A8C.7040206@m...> <1114627837.9178.280.camel@l...>

On 27 Apr 2005, at 19:50, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> On mer, 2005-04-27 at 09:00 +0300, Razvan MIHAIU wrote:
>>  a good example, but I am not concerned about this
>> situation.
>>     Let's suppose that you will use some attributes that will actually
>> influence the validation performed with your Schema. Is that a good
>> practice ? Is it widespread ? Currently, I never encoutered a project
>> in which XML Schema is extended in this way.
>
> This would be a very poor practice and that's forbidden by the WXS rec
> that says that foreign attributes should be ignored as far as 
> validation
> is concerned.

using extensions to change the meaning of existing data is dangerous 
without a required / mustUnderstand mechanism .. (ducks) ..

> The reason why these attributes are allowed is to provide additional
> annotation facilities.

using extensions to add conformance claims or additional co-constraints 
in another language such as Schematron are the use-cases that spring 
immediately to my befuddled mind.

Paul
--
http://blog.whatfettle.com

• References:
  • Re: XSD spec question
    • From: Razvan MIHAIU <mihaiu@m...>
  • Re: XSD spec question
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSD spec question
• Next by Date: RE: XSD spec question
• Previous by thread: Re: XSD spec question
• Next by thread: RE: XSD spec question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread