[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: combine
/ James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> was heard to say: | Right. We could have a restriction on combine="group" that you can't use it | in a way which makes order significant (eg combining two <element> | patterns). On the other hand that would rule out using combine="group" to | provide functionality similar to derivation of complex types by extension in | XML Schema (adding things on to the end of a content model). Making order insignificant would be nice, but I think it would be a mistake to lose the ability to mutate content models this way. | I wonder whether one could attach a priority to definitions to allow | combination without order dependence (like xsl:template). With | combine="replace", the pattern with the highest priority would be the one | used. With combine="group", the patterns would be grouped in order of | priority. You wouldn't be able to mix different kinds of combine for a | single pattern. Sounds interesting. A "computationally non-trivial nice-to-have" would be combine="restrict". This would be the same as replace, but it would be an error if the new content model was not a strict subset of the current content model. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | If today was a fish, I'd throw it back in. XML Standards Engineer | Technology Dev. Group | Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC