• From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>
• To: "Dave Pawson" <davep@d...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:45:03 -0400

I believe that was the context within which Roger first mentioned it.  I
understood him to say that it would be an interesting way to add content
to an instance, using a different namespace, that was not contemplated
in the original schema, but could be correctly validated by appropriate
schemas marshaled by NVDL.  The question of extension had come up in an
earlier discussion of maintaining schemas over time, adding or removing
or modifying elements without breaking processes not under control of
the publisher or invalidating back-files of instances.  

Bruce B Cox
Manager, Standards Development Division
OCIO/SDMG
571-272-9004


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@d...] 
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:56 AM
To: XML Developers List
Subject: Re:  XML Design for Diverse Data

Cox, Bruce wrote:
> Even for compound documents, extension by the NVDL method seems even
> scarier than the ANY element - at least you know where ANY is going to
> show up. 

I thought that NVDL was all about validation.
AFAIK 'Extensions' (of what?) don't come into it?
Where did you read that Bruce?




regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • Re: XML Design for Diverse Data
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>