• To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@c...>
• Subject: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:35:27 -0700
• Cc: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621C9B@r...> <f5bvg8u4x9p.fsf@c...>

Henry S. Thompson" wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> That was certainly the goal.  If you _do_ depend only required
> sub-parts/attributes, and _don't_ access sub-parts by working backwards
> from the end, you will always win regardless of xsi:type.

Is it that simple? What if I have a content model like

<!ELEMENT a (b,c)+> (but expressed in XML Schema!)

Can someone extend it:

<!ELEMENT a' ((b,c)+,c,b)>

If so, that could really confuse most element-triggered processing
specifications.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • RE: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Xml/xpath/xslt
• Next by Date: RE: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Previous by thread: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• Next by thread: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread