![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xmlschema-dev Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - support for substitution groups, support for redefines? >Thread Next - Re: support for substitution groups, support for redefines? Re: support for substitution groups, support for redefines?To: <xmlschema-dev@--.---> Date: 7/9/2005 8:35:00 PM I concur. "redefine" appears to be reaching into someone else's namespace, and is thus conceptually as well as syntactically dubious. OTOH subtitution groups are a good implementation of inheritance/polymorphism. We use it that way in Geography Markup Language, where we map classes to global elements. Simon Cox ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...> To: "'Bryan Rasmussen'" <brs@i...>; <xmlschema-dev@w...> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:18 AM Subject: RE: support for substitution groups, support for redefines? > > As far as I know Saxon supports redefines according to the spec, but: > > (a) there are very few test cases in the W3C test suite so it's hard to be > sure > > (b) by the nature of the facility, the design is very fragile > > (c) even if you follow the spec and the product implements it correctly, > you > can get into an awful mess > > therefore I wouldn't recommend using it. > > Substitution groups are fine, I don't see any problem with them. > > Michael Kay > http://www.saxonica.com/ > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... >> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On Behalf Of Bryan Rasmussen >> Sent: 07 July 2005 08:33 >> To: 'xmlschema-dev@w...' >> Subject: support for substitution groups, support for redefines? >> >> >> >> Hi >> Does anyone have a good overview of how well substitution groups and >> redefines are supported in various processors. The last big >> project where I >> used redefines extensively about half a year ago I had to redo halfway >> through after running into too many problems, problems where >> the redefine >> was proper and was supported by some processors but failed in >> others, even >> more insidious where cases where I had redefined incorrectly and it >> functioned in some processors or in some test instances only >> to fail later. >> This has put me off redefines, now I'm on something where >> redefines and >> substitution groups are being proposed as the extensibility >> mechanism. I've >> had misgivings about substitution groups, finding them somewhat overly >> complicated and have thus avoided them. How is their support? >> >> Cheers >> Bryan Rasmussen >> >> > > > From lists@j... Sat Jul 09 15:34:12 2005 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org w | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | |||||
|
