Both of my groups allow for restriction of elements that they do not 
support as well as extension, although extension is probalby the larger 
use.

..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, Jeff Rafter wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
> This is exactly the thinking in the MISMO group. Alongside our allowance of 
> <redefine> is a guideline on how extensions to the core schemas should be 
> done. Attributes and elements from other namespaces may be added to the 
> content models of existing elements, but nothing can be taken away. Because 
> the extensions must be namespaced processing the core elements and attributes 
> is rigid and tools that were designed to operate on the core schemas can 
> generally be re-used in the extended versions.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff Rafter
>
>

From brs@i... Tue Jul 12 08:32:55 2005
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([12