Re: support for substitution groups, support for redefines?

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
>
>