Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I'd make no assumptions that different schema languages will support the same semantics as xmlschema-1,2. If the concept of an element is sufficiently different, it won't work. Subsets will work, but new things that the Infoset doesn't allow for will not. I think the thing to focus on is that any spec that allows for PSVI content (XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0) must fall back on sensible defaults in the absence of a schema. I think the Infoset should allow for some meta-data that says where it got things: default value, DTD, schema or the instance. Some parsers will do this today for attribute defaults, for example. take it easy, Charles Reitzel At 03:43 PM 3/14/01 -0800, Jeff Rafter wrote: >It seems as though one of the primary points of contention is *where* the infoset contributions have been spec'd (e.g. in xmlschema-1/2). It seems that "[element declaration]" for example is benign and open for use by other schema languages-- I could easily imagine TREX contributing this information to the infoset proper. take it easy, Charles Reitzel
|
