• From: rjelliffe@a...
• To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:32:57 +1000 (EST)

>>> What would we lose if attributes were not namespaced?
>>
>> xsi:type and its friends?


XSD 1.0 had xsi:type because its bogus models of what people used
attributes for was not sustainable.

XSD 1.1 fixes this a little by allowing selection of type by a wider range
of markup. So I would expect that xsi:type will wither on the vine over
the next decade. I don't know that it is a show-stopper, because there is
a better workaround.

(The rub being that where companies don't switch to the latest version of
the XSD 1.1 spec, they will be more stuck with xsi:type. And this rub
exists largely because XSD 1.0 is so monolithic that implementers are
loath to re-visit their implementations.)

Cheers
Rick

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>