[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Customising and versioning
How does this sound as a potential mechanism for use of W3C XML Schema for minor versioning? I've never heard it being used but it just seems to be the natural consequence of W3C XML Schema derivation mechanisms. 1. Use xsd:redefine for types (the namespace staying the same by virtue of absence of minor version identifier) then 2. Base minor version elements on these redefined types but base them too, using xsd:substitutionGroup, on the original major version elements; however, due to there now being a second element with the same name, use a more specific namespace for the element which includes an identifier for the minor version. This gives the following advantages: 1. use of xsd:redefine allows extensions and perhaps restrictions of the types without a change of namespace but with perhaps (please correct me if I'm wrong) less ambiguity than with xsd:substitutionGroups 2. use of xsd:substitutionGroups and elements with changed namespaces reflecting the minor version allows further use of xsd:susbtitutionGroups by external customizers who use their own namespaces for further extensions and perhaps restrictions I've not tested this more than provisionally but it seemed to work sufficiently, despite being a bit verbose. There hasn't been a decision by UBL to use redefine for minor versions and it might be that UBL 2 minor versions just redeclare every element and type, making the above more academic for UBL but maybe this is a worthy design pattern for general use with all-global W3C XML Schema schema sets. One for DW: how would this work with CAM? All the best Stephen Green
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]