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

Re: Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-sche

• From: "Anthony B. Coates (XML-Dev)" <abcoatesecure-xmldev@y...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:29:06 +0100

Rick, is that historically correct?  Was anyone in the XML Schema Working  
Group ever arguing *for* content models that depend on attribute values or  
similar?  I wasn't there, but W3C XML Schema (to me) has always looked  
like a schema language which takes a lot of inspiration the way data is  
structured in object-oriented languages (and to a lesser extend,  
relational databases).

That is to say, I didn't think it was a case of "they did it this way  
because they were forced to", I always thought it was more "they did it  
this way because they chose to", which is a different kettle of fish.

Cheers, Tony.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:14:31 +0100, Rick Jelliffe  
<rjelliffe@a...> wrote:

> In XSD, for example, the use of elements to describe complexContent and
> simpleContent is jarringly odd and unpleasant, and it comes from the
> fact that XSD cannot use attributes to select a content model. Elements
> is all it has in this situation.
>
> Therefore, in XSD anything that impacts the content *must* be described
> using (ultimately) the element name, not an attribute. (@xsi:type is a
> special case.) So when using XSD, you cannot use attributes to be
> attributes that specialize the generic identifier, you have to use very
> specific identifiers. It is no advance on 1986 DTDs.
>
> This is because XSD really thinks of attributes as being funny
> sub-elements, rather than the element name being a funny truncated kind
> of attribute (which is the "architectural" view). And it is because
> there is no way for the children of an element to determine the
> effective type of the parent (err, except for the special and partial
> case of derivation by union.)
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
-- 
Anthony B. Coates
Senior Partner
Miley Watts LLP
Experts In Data
UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700
Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML),  
UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL.
http://www.mileywatts.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Will the next version of XML Schema have aschema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describeconstraints in the language)?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • RE: Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in the language)?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in the language)?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in the language)?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Will the next version of XML Schema have aschema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describeconstraints in the language)?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>