- From: michael odling-smee <mike.odlingsmee@g...>
- To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:28:24 +0100
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
> 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.)
There are some important specs like FpML that (for better or for worse)
place very heavy reliance on xsi:type, and the reality is that they aren't going to change in a hurry: there are zillions of financial transactions whizzing around the world that use this attribute.
Incidentally XSLT also makes use of namespaced attributes (e.g.
xsl:use-when). They aren't used in every stylesheet, but they serve an important purpose and you can't just get rid of them.
Regards,
Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
Â
Also we have xml:lang, soap:mustUnderstand, soap:actor etc. (these latter two often appear on their own outside the soap namespace context e.g. ebXML) etc. Personally I am not against namespaced attributes but there again I do not develop XML/XSL tools merely just use them so I am not au fait with the pain they may (or may not cause). As a developer once I "got" how namespaces work they have never really caused me much pain.
Â
Regards,
Â
Michael Odling-Smee
Â
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|