Home. 
.

transparent

transparent

transparent

Altova Mailing List Archives


Re: Implementations/Non-Implementations of xs:redefine?

From: ht@---.--.--.-- (----- -. --------)
To: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@--------.--->
Date: 1/9/2008 1:44:00 PM
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eliot Kimber writes:

> I think DITA shines a spotlight on [the dark corners of xs:redefine
> interop]. In particular, any two topic specializations used in the
> same environment (which will be all realistic uses of DITA, which,
> out-of-the-box, defines three specializations of the base topic
> type) will re-use the same base schema modules and apply *different*
> redefines.
>
> I think that's exactly the main issue Mike is describing: schemas B
> and C (e.g., topic-type-specific "shell" schemas) both redefine groups
> defined in schema A (the base "topic" topic type schema module).

I'm not sure I understand.  Do you mean that user 1 and/or document 1
need schema B, which redefines schema A, while user 2 and/or document
2 need schema C, which redefines schema A?  Or do you mean that some
users/documents need schemas B _and_ C, both of which redefine schema
A?

The former is fine, it's only the latter which is tricky and, in fact,
I would say, an error (because B and C will produce distinct
definitions of some top-level items. . .).

> In a CMS system that's trying to manage these topics, I can imagine a
> serious problem if it expects to be able keep a single, invariant
> version of the "topic" module in memory or reflected in its internal
> schema or whatever.

Yes, well, doing the wrong thing with multiple versions is a sign of a
bad CMS, regardless of how the multiple versions arise. . .

ht
=2D -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@i...
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged sp=
am]
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHhM+UkjnJixAXWBoRAkNqAJ9FngZC/8Wt0J1YITRvOKQSkdZniACfUD65
n/SXw0kvud95chhZrjGexxo=
=liMQ
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ekimber@r... Wed Jan 09 13:56:08 2008
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68


transparent
Print
Mail
Like It
Disclaimer
.

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.

.
.

transparent

transparent