[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
> And at the risk of saying too much, > a look at the alternative: > XSD without derivation looks to me > like XML without eXtensibility, a > misnomer. It would put us back to the > days of csv and fixed width (which some > still argue is where they'd rather be :-( ). The Extensibility in XML comes from being able to create multiple vocabularies from a single syntax - not from recasting types. That is a feature of XSD. > > XML does provide a major overhead > to developers and those who fund them. > I'd argue then that without the promised facilitation of > controlled extensibility (without the namespace change seems > to me to be without the control) there is little return on > investment in terms of software/standards features. The beauty is not in using a feature of XSD, rather in using XML end-to-end. > > If XSD is the de facto way to use XML > then I'd argue that it seems more and > more that substtution groups are > becoming the de facto way to use > XSD to provide eXtensibility in XML, > especially when faced with a library > standard such as UBL. This seems rather faulty logic to me. Just because a feature is available, doesn't mean we have to use it. Or perhaps we should use <any> since that will give us unlimited extensibility. We are managing from core components - ABIEs and BBIEs, not from a library of types. If you really want to manage by types, then perhaps you should look at a local solution that is based on some other data modeling methodology.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]