Michael Kay wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Since the specification of xs:override is essentially to include a
> transformed schema document, isn't it something that could be implemented in
> a preprocessor?

That's a good point. Certainly the DITA community could provide an 
extension specific to defining specializations and a corresponding 
transform to generate working XSD documents that don't use redefine at 
all. It would complicate things for specialization creators but it seems 
like a reasonable solution for now.

I'll have to think about that.

Thanks,

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

From boris@c... Mon Jan 07 18:29:45 2008
Received: from mag