|kuma...@gmail.com||Sep 24, 2008 9:03 pm|
|kuma...@gmail.com||Sep 24, 2008 9:19 pm|
|G. Ken Holman||Sep 24, 2008 9:21 pm|
|G. Ken Holman||Sep 24, 2008 9:31 pm|
|kuma...@gmail.com||Sep 24, 2008 9:32 pm|
|Anthony B. Coates (DES)||Sep 28, 2008 3:37 am|
|Paul Spencer||Sep 28, 2008 6:19 am|
|Anthony B. Coates (DES)||Sep 28, 2008 8:05 am|
|Paul Spencer||Sep 28, 2008 1:34 pm|
|Anthony B. Coates (DES)||Sep 28, 2008 2:02 pm|
|Paul Spencer||Sep 28, 2008 3:07 pm|
|Subject:||Re: [codelist] Interesting article about extending enumeration lists in XML Schema|
|From:||G. Ken Holman (gkho...@CraneSoftwrights.com)|
|Date:||Sep 24, 2008 9:21:28 pm|
At 2008-09-25 04:05 +0000, kuma...@gmail.com wrote:
Came across this interesting article.
Yes, I also saw reference to this and it was in today's Robin Cover summary.
Rules out genericode based approach in the study.
Sure he does ... but from what I read his proposal doesn't address everything that genericode does for deployments such as UBL because of his focus.
The only genericode lists that are "extended" in UBL are those without definition ... that is to say they are a restriction of an infinite set of all possible values.
I see using genericode with context/value association allowing different users to have different restrictions on lists without having different schemas.
Furthermore genericode with context/value association allows different restrictions on the same enumeration used in different contexts of the one document. I don't believe this can be addressed in W3C Schema when using global types.
While, yes, you could put value-level meta data and list-level meta data in appinfo constructs in a W3C Schema enumeration, genericode allows one to selectively use the available keys without having to change the file in any way.
So I don't think his "ruling out" of genericode really affects people considering solutions that need the flexibility not offered by W3C Schema.
In fact, I think that since the article is *about* extending lists in W3C Schema (based on the title) it makes sense that he cannot talk about genericode. His observation about genericode that reads "Adding new technology requirements can be too costly or time-consuming in some settings." is, I think too subjective ... if a user's problem is solved by genericode and not by W3C Schema then either they change their requirements or they accept that they need as much software as is needed to solve their problem. There will be many implementations of genericode and context/value association ... in many contexts such as document data entry or document validation.
But did you notice the last bullet of the conclusion?
"If you want to keep enumerated values out of the parser, consider the Genericode approach"
Sounds to me like he is affirming genericode's existence and role when users are prepared to do without W3C schema enumerations to get the advantages of genericode and context/value association.
. . . . . . . . . . Ken
-- Upcoming XSLT/XSL-FO hands-on courses: Wellington, NZ 2009-01 Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video G. Ken Holman mailto:gkho...@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal