[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
Mark That's surprising, thanks for the correction. However I'd be hard pressed to find a better reason for global. Global seems to me to tie in very much with type oriented schemas and that in turn ties in with polymorhism (which requires the global elements as well as the global types). In other words it seems to me that the industry, where advocating global schemas (increasingly so, it seems) does seem to do so with features such as inheritance / polymorphic treatment of types strongly in mind, along with the growing tool and other standard support (XSLT 2, etc). I think Eduardo's/Arofan's paper on the subject went along these lines. All the best Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org> To: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>; <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups > If UBL were to drop the XSD derivation > (it entailing essentially the use of > substitution groups), and yet the global design were to > prevail in ATG2, where would that leave UBL? There would be a > global design to follow without the essential reason and > benefits wouldn't there? Both designs would then surely have > lost their respective advantages wouldn't they? Sorry Stephen - we NEVER put the advantages of XSD derivation on the table when discussing global/local.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]