Good point about the open content not applying to the attributes. However, do you need it for attributes? It's not only about the naming, but also the behavior. After reading the "open content" more carefully, it is in practice the same thing as "validation by projection" for elements or at least sufficiently close that I think it does not make sense to take a slightly different road than the one taken by the Schema WG.
So first, let's make sure that the behavior is the same as a subset of the "open content interleave" behavior (which I think it is). Then, the naming will fall into place. Radu > -----Original Message----- > From: Wesley Leggette [mailto:wlegge...@cleversafe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:44 PM > To: dev@xmlbeans.apache.org; Radu Preotiuc-Pietro > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 4] Summary of outstanding patches > > > Radu, > > Thanks, and yeah, I guess I hadn't shown the last one yet. > > In addition, I have an additional fix for the VBP thing. I > will combine that and resubmit, so don't commit that one yet. > > However, VBP and open content seem to be slightly different. > VBP seems to be slightly more lax than open content. While I > don't feel very strongly about the particular name, my only > concern is that open content may require different rules that > a conceptual "validation by projection". If we were to call > what I've done open content, it might end up being a misnomer. > > Particularly, it is not clear to me that open content in > interleave or suffix mode allows arbitrary attributes. It > seems that open content only applies to elements. If this is > the case, it should be noted that VBP does not have this design. > > Wesley > > > On 4/28/09 15:42, "Radu Preotiuc-Pietro" > <radu.preotiuc-pie...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > Wesley, > > > > I have just commited the user-types patch yesterday, SVN revision > > 769119 (feel free to do a diff if you want to confirm that > everything is in place). > > > > The "validation by projection" part I am ok with and will commit it > > soon also, but I want to change the name to something like > > "assumeOpenContent" to be in line with the terminology adopted by > > XMLSchema 1.1 for a feature which I think is equivalent. > > > > The "imported patch annotation-fixes" is new to me: is it > just adding > > @Deprecated annotations for 1.5-compatible code? If so, obviously I > > agree with it and will commit this too. > > > > Thanks, > > Radu > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: wlegge...@cleversafe.com [mailto:wlegge...@cleversafe.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:36 PM > >> To: dev@xmlbeans.apache.org > >> Cc: wlegge...@cleversafe.com > >> Subject: [PATCH 0 of 4] Summary of outstanding patches > >> > >> What follows is a summary of my outstanding patches. Please let me > >> know what I need to do to get these accepted. > >> > >> Wesley > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@xmlbeans.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@xmlbeans.apache.org > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@xmlbeans.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@xmlbeans.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@xmlbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@xmlbeans.apache.org
