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

Re: Backward and forward compatible schemas ... Relax NG --> Y

• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:15:19 +0200

Although I like the model for handling any in XML Schema 1.1
theoretically I think from the point of view of Data processing
applications contra the view of Data presentation applications they
are a minefield.
The benefit of having to have a wrapper for any if you wanted to get
anything useful done with it, was that you could make much simpler
rules for how one needs to process the extension. This is useful in
large codebases cause you can assume the chance of a mess up is
lessened.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On 8/27/07, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 22:33 -0700, Dave Orchard wrote:
> > The blanket statement that XML schema 1.0 does not support forwards and backwards compatibility is incorrect.  Using an "Extension"
> > or "Sentinel" element, one can get around XSD 1.0 UPA constraints at the cost of extra markup in instances.  This is shown in the
> > W3C TAG Versioning Finding(editors draft) XML and Schema doc, section 7.4 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-xml#versionid3
> > and in the section 4 "Version Strategy" of an XML.com article explaining forwards compatibility using XSD 1.0
> > (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/10/27/extend.html?page=4)
>
> I think Dave is replacing one blanket statement with another. To say "it
> supports it in a particular case" is no rebuttal to people saying "it
> doesn't support it in every case, by which I mean 'in my case'."
>
> What people complain about with XML Schemas 1.0 is having to adjust the
> base schema when they want to just be able to adjust the derived
> schemas. (That you have to add wildcards or <other> elements willy nilly
> is as old as the hills, and no advance on parameter entities or
> <redefine>.)
>
> However, the whole basis of XML Schemas is namespaces and modularity,
> and that means adopting standard or industry vocabularies which almost
> universally have not been written to be open. People are really loath to
> rewrite standard or industry vocabularies.
>
> That being said, the new features in XSD 1.1 for openness look a step in
> the right direction for capabilities, except for adding to the monolith
> and thereby being a step in the wrong direction complexity-wise.
>
> Cheers
> Rick
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Backward and forward compatible schemas ... Relax NG --> Yes... XML Schema --> No
    • From: noah_mendelsohn@u...

• References:
  • Backward and forward compatible schemas ... Relax NG --> Yes ... XML Schema --> No
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Backward and forward compatible schemas ... Relax NG --> Yes... XML Schema --> No
    • From: noah_mendelsohn@u...
  • RE: Backward and forward compatible schemas ... Relax NG --> Yes ... XML Schema --> No
    • From: "Dave Orchard" <orchard@p...>
  • RE: Backward and forward compatible schemas ... RelaxNG --> Yes ... XML Schema --> No
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>