[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Just for the record, I now count three gaps with XSD
I was unable to get to emails in the latter stages of the recent discussions, sorry. Just for the record, not wanting to spark further debate but open to contrary or confirming comment, I now count that there have been three key areas where UBL work has found a gap between e-commerce requirements and XSD (W3C XML Schema) features: first was ** Subsets ** (hence no schemas provided for the SBS) second was ** Codelists ** (enumerated datatype restriction and extension) now the third seems to be ** Extension Points ** We also, historically, had problems with use of substitution groups for customisation when there were already imports in the schemas (instances needed different prefix requirements after customisation from those they had before it). I also find problems using 'redefine' across 'imports' which would hinder its use for minor versioning of modular schemas which already use 'import'. There have been problems trying to redefine schemas where the redefinitions are needed both sides of imports (or several imports in UBL's case). On the plus side though, I did manage to get substitution groups working to some extent with UBL's CCTS-datatypes in a way which was CCTS compliant, I think (subsituting elements based on types based on CCTS 'qualified datatypes' based on CCTS 'unqualified datatypes'). This was to customise UBL 1.0. Of course there are known limitations in customising UBL 1.0 this way already being possibly fixed with the design for UBL 2 (UBL NDR 2). I'll be presenting my own slant on this later in June at an XML UK meeting in Reading (Town Hall), UK on coming 27th June at 10.35 BST if anyone is near enough to come and heckle :-) All the best Stephen Green
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]