[XMLSCHEMA-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: optional, but at least one required

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:39:52 +0100
To: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'Marie Bilde Rasmussen'" <mariebilderas@gmail.com>, "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, "'Virginia Wiswell'" <vwiswell@verizon.net>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008801c8116a$d5f83c00$6501a8c0@turtle>
RE: optional

> c) It makes the worst-case time complexity of subsumption checking
>    between two content models linear (as opposed to exponential).


Which makes me wonder just how important this very general capability to
restrict content models is. Particularly as the price you pay is to spell
out the parts of the model that you want to keep in the subtype, rather than
only saying which parts you want to drop, which makes it a maintenance
nightmare.

Sometimes I think that all you really need in practice is the ability to
modify individual element particles either (a) to prohibit them from
appearing at all, or (b) to restrict the type of their own content. 

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 09:40:24 GMT

Subscribe to the Stylus Scoop newsletter for helpful XML tips and tutorials.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company

Download Stylus Studio 6 XML Enterprise Edition

Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2007 All Rights Reserved.