• From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:38:34 -0500

I agree, but I always include in any definition that semantic 
interoperability must be maintained as well. So even though the schema 
may still validate the data, it has to pass further compliance 
constraints outside of the validation. I would also add that Schematron 
will run into the same issue as well..particularly if the meaning of 
elements and attributes change.

> Accordingly, I am raising caution to the common fallacy: "If my XML
> Schema is backward-compatible then my application can process old
> instance documents."
>
> Do you agree?
>   

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibility as a versioning strategy for data exchange
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>

• References:
  • Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibility as a versioning strategy for data exchange
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibility as a versioning strategy for data exchange
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibility as a versioning strategy for data exchange
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
  • Re: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibilityas a versioning strategy for data exchange
    • From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>
  • RE: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibility as a versioning strategy for data exchange
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>