[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Substitution Groups Reconsidered
I've talked by phone with Phill a little while ago, and he tells me that I missed a very crucial 45 minutes during F2F #4 when I had to leave to join a phone call. In that time, the TC apparently agreed that substitution groups are important in extension schemas because if you're extending a "null assertion statement" (the head of the chain of assertion types, which has nothing particular specified in it), xsi:type gives you no more information than a substituted element would. I'm sorry I wasn't present for that discussion. I do understand the argument (though I would submit that it's a pretty darn weak argument for substitution groups!). I'm not morally opposed to allowing extension schemas to use substitution groups; I just (erroneously) thought this was something we had definitively decided against. I'm sorry I was being dense about this. (I do wish there were more detail in the minutes so I could have seen this change in approach...) Phill and I did agree that it's a good idea to have some non-normative text somewhere explaining the benefits and costs of different extension approaches (substitution group vs. xsi:type). Perhaps this is something I can add to my proposed schema design rationale document. Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC