RE: [ubl-cmsc] XSD Derivation

[Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@schemantix.com>]

Aha, I missed this one. Well if the argument is that schema processor
support is not there, I say: so what? We can reasonably assume that it will
be by the time people start to use this stuff. Also, UBL could be a major
driver to making this happen. Finally, what is the advantage to using an ad
hoc derivation syntax (by definition supported by no one) rather than a
standard derivation syntax (that can always be implemented ad hoc if
standard support is not there)?

I'm confused...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:45 PM
> To: ubl-cmsc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ubl-cmsc] XSD Derivation
> 
> 
> Some kinds of derivation allowed in the XSD spec 
> (restriction, substitution 
> groups) are not universally implemented.  If we left these out of 
> consideration, and the question were just "Should XSD complex type 
> extension be used...?", I could see an argument for doing that in an 
> XSD-native way rather than performing a schema-to-schema 
> transformation.  But there may be costs to treating this kind 
> of context 
> rule differently from the others.  In short, I'm with Eduardo 
> on this one. :-)
> 
>          Eve
> 
> At 04:18 PM 11/16/01 +0100, Matthew Gertner wrote:
> >2) Should XSD derivation be used when context rules are 
> applied: always,
> >sometimes or never? In others, what is the derivation 
> relationship, if any,
> >between contextual components and the base components that 
> yielded them?
> 
> --
> Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>