[jsdl-wg] Version 1.0 of the XSD Schema for JSDL
Donal K. Fellows
donal.k.fellows at manchester.ac.uk
Wed Nov 24 03:15:00 CST 2004
William Lee wrote:
> I agreed that Qname type can be used, however, it's been a controversial
> type to use throughout the history of XSD, because interpretation of a QName
> value needs contextual information (the enclosing elements and their xmlns
> <jsdl:JobDefinition ...>
> For the parser, it needs to resolve the "myns" namespace prefix from the
> enclosing elements in order to deduce whether it's in the jsdl namespace or
That's why I wanted it. :^) The aim is to make those extensible
enumerations where people can add their own elements but must do so in a
way that won't tread on where we might wish to put our toes in future.
The other sensible way of doing this is the informal technique used in
specifications like CIM, where you just have a common prefix to all the
values that you define. But if you're doing that, you might as well
formalize it in terms of common XML rules.
In terms of parsing, I think both SAX and DOM have support for making
this sort of processing easy...?
More information about the jsdl-wg