[jsdl-wg] Proposed Extension draft document

[Michel Drescher]

Donal K. Fellows wrote:
> Michel Drescher wrote:
>> Yes I know. Both alternatives -- abstract types and substitutionGroups 
>> -- are functionally equivalent. So whichever fits best current tooling 
>> (the draft is in quite early stage, though) should be used in the 
>> extension. I have no preference, really.
>>
>> On the other hand, the substitutionGroup technique requires you to 
>> define a default assignment function. I think there is no default 
>> assignment function that would be applicable here.
> 
> Actually, it doesn't. If the default is an abstract element, then people
> have to use the subtypes/elements instead. And it tools up correctly
> with at least one (Axis 1.3).

Yes, interesting alternative. Will explore this further.

>> Hence the example does not omit the SweepGroup element -- "SweepGroup" 
>> is an XML Schema group that does not render element start and end tags.
>> Again, if tooling does not support that very well if at all, it is a 
>> matter of seconds to change that to a plain old contain er element.
> 
> Hmm, I'd be tempted to leave the type out then. Cuts confusion for us
> bears of little brain. :-)

CannotParseException - you are opting for using a container element 
(i.e. explicit start and end tag?)

>> The "Parameter" element's value is a XPath expression. So it may 
>> evaluate to an attribute's value or element value. If the assignment 
>> function is chosen wisely, then it yields strings that contain XML 
>> snippets. This way, you can sweep over EPRs...
> 
> I'd rather define the assignment values themselves to be XML chunks
> otherwise there's the whole question of how much quoting has to be done
> to assemble a string containing (in infoset space) <> characters.

Good point. Thought about this - which is the appropriate type? 
"xsd:anySimpleType"?

Cheers,
Michel

-- 
Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
+44 20 8606 4834