Several organizations that develop schemas are looking at the need to 
allow for customization of the "standard" schemas. ACORD is one of those 
organizations, ebXML is another. We have different ways of getting there, 
even within ACORD I have different ways. One standard makes use of the 
xsd:any and another is using xsd:redefine.

It turns out that we cannot get every one's requirements in the standard 
and some folks see a need to have their data in XML stream but feel that 
even knowledge of these fields is their IP and as such do not want to put 
the information in a standard.

As an SGML publsihing guy I found this to be a horrifying situation but 
over the years working with the Insurance industry, I've come to accept 
the need for this. Now the question is how do you support it and with 
which features? The one group that uses xsd:any is not interested in 
validatiing the extensions, the other group is. We are not happy that 
redefine modifies the primary namespace, but we have to live with that 
outcome to get the functionality we are looking for "out of te box" with 
standard XML schema tools.

..dan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Vint

Specializing in Panoramic Images of California and the West
http://www.dvint.com

Voice:510:522-4703
FAX: 801-749-3229

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Michael Kay wrote:

>
>> Well, I know I have to be wrong being on the opposite side of an
>> argument from the likes of Simon and Michael, but I still disagree. I
>> think that the <redefine> facility maps very cleanly on to
>> the old DTD
>> practice of redefining items in the internal subset.
>
> That doesn't sound like much of a justification. Why would I want to define
> a set of rules that documents must conform to, and then allow the author of
> a document to modify those rules for his particular document?
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
>
>

From lists@j... Sun Jul 10 20:16:45 2005
Received: from bart.w3.org ([128