Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Miscellaneous XML Tips

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 01:55:02 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Urpalainen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 5 May 2006 4:50 PM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Miscellaneous XML Tips
> 
<snip> 
> The primary reason for not using substitution groups and just to stick
> with <xs:any> is because you can't write forwards and backwards
> compatible schemas without those wildcards. For presence it is imo
> reasonable, but not necessarily always. With common policy the rules
> could have been stricter, imo. Substitution groups give nice, exact
> extension points to w3c schemas, but actually Relax NG outperforms w3c
> schemas here, as with it you can easily redefine the rules (and even
> without the dreaded UPA constraint).
> br,
> Jari

In other words, a processor that only understands the base specification is unable to correctly process a document that contains an extension without access to the extension schema.  I can appreciate that.  However, in some cases that may be appropriate to a degree.  In any case, it looks like we will be living with the shortcomings of schemas for a little while yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv