Michael Kay wrote:
> I think it's not so much a question of whether tools implement redefine or
> not, it's a question of whether they handle the corner cases, and how they
> handle the cases that are not well-described in the specification. Examples
> are whether two schema documents B and C can both redefine A, and under what
> circumstances those redefinitions can coexist. Or what happens if you load a
> schema incrementally (for example because of xsi:schemaLocation) and you've
> already started validating before you encounter a redefinition. Or what
> happens if you are doing something other than straight validation.
> 
> I think it would be wise for anyone using xs:redefine to check that their
> usage of it is supported by the tools they consider important in their
> market.

Yes, that's the essential question, but for a standard, the market is 
"anyone who might use DITA", which is essentially anyone who might use 
XML for any sort of human-readable content.

I guess the most reasonable thing to do is to create a set of 
DITA-specific test cases that can be used to evaluate products' handling 
of redefine as well as document the limitation in using XSD at all for 
specialization.

It goes without saying that I've very disappointed the xs:override 
proposal as pushed off for 1.1--that would have made things so much 
easier. But I certainly understand the pressures that require those 
sorts of hard decisions to be made. I, and the entire DITA community, 
certainly appreciate the effort made in putting the proposal forward.

Thanks,

Eliot
-- 
Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 610.631.6770
www.reallysi.com
www.rsuitecms.com

From mike@s... Mon Jan 07 16:28:02 2008
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193